


The Steve Problem: A die hard Team Tony defends Steve Rogers.

by WilmaKins



Category: Captain America (Movies), Iron Man (Movies), Marvel, Marvel Cinematic Universe, The Avengers (Marvel Movies)
Genre: Captain America: Civil War (Movie) Spoilers, Character Study, Introspection, Meta, Nonfiction, Not a fic, Other, Relationship Study, Team Tony, steve positive
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2020-06-26
Updated: 2020-06-26
Packaged: 2021-03-03 18:37:22
Rating: Teen And Up Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 1
Words: 27,215
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/24920146
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/WilmaKins/pseuds/WilmaKins
Summary: THIS IS NOT A FIC!This is a very (very) long analysis of my own view of the dispute in CACW, and the discourse that followed. It is a fairly openly Team Tony analysis that none the less focuses mainly on defending Steve, and critiquing the treatment he gets from both the audience and the writers.It is written by someone who loves both characters very deeply.I am not expecting anyone to read it - If I'm honest, I don't know why anyone would be this interested in my opinion on this. But, if you are a fellow member of the 'four years on and still angry' club, or are simply curious, please be aware of what you're getting into, and please read the notes.
Relationships: Steve Rogers & Tony Stark
Comments: 48
Kudos: 57





	The Steve Problem: A die hard Team Tony defends Steve Rogers.

**Author's Note:**

> Hopefully the summary has given people a fair idea of what they're getting into, but just to make a few points very clear:  
> I am in no way trying to suggest that my interpretation of these characters, or the events in canon, is the RIGHT one. Hopefully the tone makes it clear throughout, but by page 62 I might've skipped over a few 'IMHO's. They are always intended. This is just my interpretation of the conflict, without any claim to authority. Just because, say, I don't think the Accords were important, doesn't mean I think you're wrong or unreasonable for thinking otherwise - the essay (EVENTUALLY) gets around to making that very point, in fact.  
> Also, while this is generally very supportive and sympathetic to Steve, it *is* an essay about my ISSUES with the characterisation of Steve, and my gripes with decisions the studio made - it therefore may occasionally sound more negative than if it had been a *general* essay about Steve or the MCU. Obviously, I love both. But in an essay about what I would've liked to see done better, there is not as much room for what I liked as it was. And God knows it's long and self indulgent enough. But please keep that context in mind.  
> Finally, I know this topic generates discourse and - if *anyone* gets that far - people will have opinions on this. I'm happy to accept constructive criticism and further debate. But I would respectfully ask that you try to keep your responses constructive, non-personal and free of general character bashing, and that you acknowledge where your interpretation is just that, an interpretation. I really have tried to do the same, with this.

**...What the Hell is this?**

If there is  _ anyone _ reading this... some of you will be wondering how the hell I could come up with damn near 30,000 words of ire on the very specific topic of Captain America: Civil War - and, more to the point, what  _ possessed _ me to actually sit and type them out. 

...I suspect there are also some people who understand  _ exactly _ what feeling inspired me to do this.

But the fact that it’s ended up on my AO3 account after all these years is down to a number of things - and it really isn’t because I think this will be interesting or useful to anyone but me. 

Partly, it’s because I’ve actually been crafting this rant for four years now. So much of it is pulled from individual points I’ve angrily posted on Tumblr or Discord - points I was never sure where to begin or end, because they were all part of a wider argument. 

A wider argument that’s been rattling around my head for years now, something I have always wanted to thread together - something I finally wanted to lay out and read for myself, I guess. 

Partly, it’s because I genuinely think it’d be helpful for me, now that I  _ am _ using fanfic as a way to improve my writing. Seeing as I  _ was _ finally brave enough to take the leap out into fandom, and have found such a fun and rewarding group experience as a result of it. All of which happened because of this film, funnily enough… But, since it has. I’d like to start writing my stories and characters from a more conscious understanding of my opinions on them, a better awareness of my  _ own _ assumptions about them. And as I have to start somewhere, the main pairing of my stories, and the main conflict of most of my stories, seemed the most accessible place. 

Partly, I genuinely think my husband might consider divorcing me, if I don’t find another outlet for all these disparate thoughts. 

**All in all, it comes down to the fact that I’m still so fucking angry.**

I don’t mean to be all hipster on main, but – I was angry about Captain America: Civil War  _ before _ it was cool.

Seriously. I was angry about CACW before it even came out. I had been apprehensive and mildly frustrated since the first time I saw the soon-to-be-ubiquitous phrase-

_ Whose side are you on? _

And you might think that is simply because I’m a Stony shipper, and I didn’t like the idea of my favourites being pitted against each other… and yeah, maybe it was partly that. I was certainly never  _ looking forward _ to watching the relationship I cared about being battered into plot points…

_ Or, _ you might assume that I didn’t like the idea of fans being  _ literally set against each other _ – and, to be fair, I wasn’t much looking forward to that either. I’d found a sort of family in the MCU fandom. We’d been linked by what we had in common up until then, identified by a shared love of the universe, watching the story unfold together… I wasn’t much looking forward to being divided into factions and turned on each other, no.

But, mostly, it just seemed so unfair to  _ Steve _ .

And the unfair treatment of Steve in the MCU was already a pet peeve of mine, by that point.

Don’t get me wrong, I am first and foremost a Tony Stark stan, and have been since 2008 – I could write several, equally long rants about where  _ Tony  _ has been treated unfairly… But that would be a different rant.

_ And _ , as I never tired of telling my long-suffering friends, the reason I related so strongly with Tony in 2016 was that, by then, I’d seen so much of him.

I’d already watched three entire films dedicated to his personal journey. Films that focused on Tony, and his story, and his network of friends and the history they represented. Movies that included scenes of Tony having panic attacks, or getting drunk at his birthday party, or tinkering with his bots. Movies that found space to explore his relationship with his father, and his relationship with Pepper, movies with lengthy scenes dedicated to him just talking to Rhodey or JARVIS or Harley.

And that was without the screen time and emotional weight given to his role in the two Avengers movies so far.

Even before CACW, it seemed to me that Steve didn’t get the same treatment.

Here was a man, dealing with the confusion and trauma of being out of his time, and the isolation of being all alone in the world, and the personal journey of figuring out who he is when everything has changed around him – and he’s  _ never _ given the chance to explore that on screen.

His first movie takes place entirely before any of that happens

His second movie is so packed with action sequences and densely-written political intrigue and building the overarching plot that he gets very little time to reflect

He takes a back seat to Tony’s story and personal development in both Avengers movies.

He doesn’t have a network of friends to have deep conversations with, he doesn’t have a canonically important parent through which his family history could be explored, he doesn’t have a social life or second job through which we could see another side of him.

Already it seemed as though Steve was treated differently by the writers, and the in-universe characters, and even the audience.

Like more of him was taken for granted, never given the spotlight or the attention that other characters got.

Like so much of what he says is simply taken at face value, where we’d assume other characters were more complex.

Like the events and traumas that should have been formative were glossed over and ignored.

And now they’re asking half the audience to side  _ against _ Steve –  _ in his own movie?? _

So, yeah, I walked  _ into _ CACW with a certain sense of foreboding.

And walked out  _ fuming _ , obviously.

And yes, I was angry on Tony’s behalf.

If we  _ have _ to pick a side – and Marvel was  _ quite _ insistent we all pick a side – then I’m #TeamTony.

I think CACW is a film about Steve’s mistakes. And, although I don’t think he makes those mistakes out of spite or selfishness, I  _ do _ think a lot of them are because Steve is panicked, and confused, and even angry. I think a lot of what he gets wrong, he gets wrong because of human flaws – and as such he should apologise and make up for it.

I think – in  _ that _ film – it’s Steve that has done Tony wrong. I think, on a personal level, he was wrong to lie to Tony. I think he owes Tony an apology for not trusting him, for not having enough respect to tell him, and for not considering the potential consequences of doing all of that in secret. I think there are several places in the movie where Steve is less than fair to Tony, or compounds his original error by failing to deal with it sooner. I think he  _ was _ at least partly motivated by his own fear and personal anxiety, and he needed to face up to that and apologise for that too.

I  _ even  _ think I agree with Tony on the Accords –  _ although _ , as I’ll get to later, I don’t even think we know what the Accords  _ are  _ from what we see on screen, and actually, it shouldn’t matter…

The point is, all in all, I’m a Tony Stark fan and I basically think Tony was right in this movie – and, hey, I’m always on Tony’s team.

But here’s the thing.

Age of Ultron is basically a film about Tony’s mistakes. And, although I don’t think he makes those mistakes out of spite or selfishness, I  _ do _ think a lot of them are because Tony is panicked, and confused, and even angry. I think a lot of what he gets wrong, he gets wrong because of human flaws – and, as such, he should apologise and make up for it.

I think, on a personal level, Tony was wrong to purposefully hide what he was doing from Steve, knowing that Steve would have an interest and an opinion. I think he owes Steve an apology for not trusting him, for not having enough respect to tell him, and for not considering the potential consequences of doing all of that in secret. I think there are several places in the movie where Tony is less than fair to Steve, or compounds his original error by failing to deal with it properly. And he  _ did  _ keep that secret for selfish reasons, because he was so anxious to get it done that he didn’t  _ want _ to deal with Steve’s objections, and Tony needed to face up to that and apologise for that, too.

I  _ even  _ think I agree with Steve on the overarching ‘Man Was Not Meant To Meddle’ debate –  _ although _ , of course, in that movie the wider debate isn’t allowed to detract from the personal story being told, so it hardly matters…

And  _ yes _ , as a Tony Stark fan, I’ve  _ also _ spent the last five years defending Tony’s role in Age of Ultron, too. Because, even though I know he was wrong - hell, there’s nothing in the tone of  _ this _ movie, or the marketing, that suggests otherwise - that doesn’t mean it was  _ all _ Tony’s fault, and that doesn’t mean there weren’t reasons, or that all the criticisms against him are reasonable, or that Tony was never mistreated in that movie. I still think Steve said some unfair things to  _ Tony _ in AoU. I still think Thor was wrong to throttle him, and that it’s okay to say so-

But -  _ whisper it very quietly _ \- all of that could be said of Steve in CACW, even if you accept he’s the one to make the mistake. 

The difference is, even though Age of Ultron is literally sold to us as ‘Tony faces yet another fuck up, all characters agree’ - it’s  _ never _ expected that I won’t be Team Tony at the end.

I’m never asked to side  _ against _ Tony, even while I’m watching him flail. 

I didn’t have to choose between siding  _ against _ Tony, or thinking all of his actions were morally right, when Tony was keeping his palladium poisoning from everyone he loved and getting pissed up at his birthday party.

I didn’t have to choose between siding  _ against  _ Thor, or thinking it must be the actions of a worthy leader, when Thor let Loki goad him into attacking the Frost Giants.

I didn’t have to choose between siding  _ against _ Wanda, or believing she was right to help ULTRON in the first place.

I don’t have to defend being a KGB assassin, to be on Nat’s team.

I don’t have to defend being in Thanos’ army, to be on Nebula’s team, or Gamora’s team.

In fact, if you think about it…  _ Every _ MCU movie, every  _ other _ character’s arc, is about someone making a mistake, or being an ass – and why we should still be on their team anyway. Those movies are about people learning from and making up for and moving on from their mistakes. In those movies, we watch people screw up and we love them  _ more _ by the end-

But not Steve.

It’s not the same, for Steve.

And  _ this _ is why, even though I think Tony was right in CACW, even though my heart  _ breaks _ for Tony in CACW, even though I am  _ always _ #TeamTony – I have spent the last four years defending Steve.

And that, in case you’re wondering, has finally possessed me to write all of this out into what might literally be a sixty page rant. Knowing that very few people will ever read it, and that, as it’s only an analysis of my own complex and personal opinion, it won’t mean very much-

But I’m just  _ so _ fed up with having this rant to myself at 4 in the morning. 

So, with that it mind...

**Woah, Woah, Woah, Back Up – Are You Saying The Accords** **_Didn’t Matter??_ **

…Yeah, I guess I should deal with this first.

Seeing as Marvel Studios presented this as  _ the _ big divide of the movie, and the motivation of so many main characters-

And seeing as I intend to essentially dispense with it early on.

Yeah. I  _ am _ saying that The Accords didn’t matter.

Or, at least that they  _ shouldn’t _ have mattered – that they were in fact  _ made _ to matter-

At Steve’s expense.

I am saying that, in this movie, Steve’s primary motivation is his relationship with Bucky, and the main story  _ should be  _ the personal journey that Steve goes on – the Accords are simply part of the background stress for him.

They could actually have been dropped  _ completely, _ without massively changing the plot.

Just as, in Age of Ultron, Tony’s primary motivation is the trauma he went through in the Avengers movie, and his feeling of responsibility for keeping the world safe – the fact that scientific experiments like this are controversial simply provides a little bit of context for his initial choices. The philosophical question of whether man was meant to meddle is briefly mentioned - and then completely dropped from the plot, as we focus on Tony’s redemption. All characters are free to act and interact, regardless of where they might’ve stood on that general ethical question. Tony’s actions were judged for what they were, rather than what side of the debate they represent. A fundamental difference of opinion is present, even necessary, to push Tony into his decision and spark the initial conflict - but clearly needn’t define the whole story, if you’re more interested in telling another one. 

Let’s consider, The Sokovia Accords never happened – in fact, screw it, let’s assume  _ Sokovia  _ never happened. Assume AoU ends with the Avengers defeating ULTRON before the city ever gets off the ground.

Presumably, Steve is  _ still _ searching for Bucky in secret. He’s still not told Tony the truth about his parents. He’s still working with Sam (and possibly Nat?) behind Tony’s back, even if Sokovia never happens… because he was doing all of that  _ before _ Sokovia happened. This is a choice he’s shown to make way back at the end of CATWS, and it’s reiterated to the audience at the  _ start _ of Age of Ultron -  _ before _ Sokovia – that he and Sam are already working on that little side project.

So, that continues as it started - regardless of Sokovia.

We can assume there still  _ is _ some sort of International Authority after the fall of SHIELD – in fact, we  _ know _ there is. We know that ‘no one has called for Banner’s arrest, but it’s in the air’ in Age of Ultron, suggesting there was  _ always _ someone to get mad and demand penalties, even before the event for which The Accords were named. Hey, everyone was hiding at Clint’s farmhouse from  _ someone _ . Strucker got sent to prison by  _ somebody _ .

So, even if Sokovia never happened, we can assume that Steve starts CACW already keeping that secret from Tony, and already answerable to somebody – at least from that somebody’s point of view.

Now, we imagine that the accident in Lagos happens  _ exactly as it did in the movie. _ Wakandan citizens are killed, and T’Chaka is pissed off. Various national governments ‘call for Wanda’s arrest’, in the same nebulous way they did in the last movie. Ross turns up an yells –

But no one mentions an ‘accords’ of any kind. The idea simply never comes up.

Things are just tense, that’s all.

And, to make matters worse, there is a personal rift brewing between Tony, who thinks he knows how diplomacy like this works in the real world and wants to build bridges, and Steve, who is growing ever more disillusioned with modern politics, and increasingly less co-operative – an extension of the personal malaise that we saw from him at the start of CATWS. Nothing more.

We’ll assume Zemo is still pissed at the Avengers for some other reason. Tony made fun of his bike in high school. Steve helped an old lady onto a bus once, and that old lady went on to save the life of the man who killed Zemo’s dad. Some bullshit. 

As such, his plan remains largely the same.

(And, seeing as he was apparently working on this plan for months, even years before the Sokovia Accords were invented – at the start of this movie – we can assume that it never relied on Bucky bombing the signing of the Accords, specifically. That he was always planning on simply getting Bucky on America’s Most Wanted, so that Bucky would be found, and arrested by  _ someone _ . That seems to have  _ always _ been the basic nature of his plan, Accords or no)

He dresses up as Bucky and bombs some  _ other _ diplomatic event, as we assume he would have, had Vienna not been arranged at the last minute.

Does it seem likely that, without the Accords,  _ no one _ would have called for Bucky’s arrest, at that point?

Does it seem likely that, were it not for The Accords, Steve would have  _ let _ that arrest happen? That he’d have let those soldiers burst into Bucky’s Bucharest apartment, and possibly kill him, if it weren’t for the fact that it went against a moral stand he was otherwise making? If this had all happened literally four weeks earlier, before any of them knew anything about the Accords?

…Does it seem likely that, when he and Bucky were arrested, Steve would’ve chosen right  _ then _ to tell Tony the brutal truth about his parents? This horrible secret that he’s hidden for two years, even  _ without _ the Bucky-related-political-powder-keg that’s suddenly come up? He’s going to choose right  _ now _ , when Bucky is under arrest, and it would be the worst possible time for Tony to lose his mind over it?

Because, if he  _ is _ … why didn’t he anyway? What consequence would’ve resulted from telling Tony the truth when Bucky was arrested under the Accords, which wouldn’t have been as much a consequence had Bucky just been…  _ arrested, _ arrested? 

So, Accords aside, we can assume that Bucky has still been arrested, Steve has still tried to help him, Steve still hasn’t told Tony the whole story (for much the same reasons) and they’re still in the middle of an argument over whether to work with the authorities or fight against them.

Then Zemo turns up in the guise of a psychologist, triggers Bucky, and that whole fight happens exactly as it did – sexy helicopter scene and all.

Steve and Sam end up in the same warehouse, listening to the exact same story from Bucky. The following dialogue occurs:

Steve: If we call Tony…

Sam: No, he won't believe us.

Steve: Even if he did…

Sam: Who knows if  **Ross, or current international laws** , would let him help.

Steve: We're on our own.

…Because why would Tony be any more likely to  _ believe _ Steve, if the Accords had never been invented?

What, he would’ve been  _ allowed _ to harbour The Winter Soldier, recently ‘caught on tape’ bombing the Wakandan Embassy, were it not for  _ this _ law…?

And – let’s be honest – it’s no less awkward for Steve in this scenario. A motivation that is never explored or discussed, but there it is –  _ how _ can Steve call Tony, and explain what Zemo said to Bucky, and where these super soldiers come from etc – without broaching this really sensitive topic at the worst possible time? Without being caught out in this lie? Which, honestly, he still doesn’t  _ want _ to get caught out in at all… but, seriously, not  _ now _ .

And on the other side of this – do the Accords actually motivate Tony, any more than the presence of existing international law enforcement would have? Or is it  _ all _ just his relationship with Steve, and his personal priorities in terms of keeping the team together?

Let’s say that it’s Ross, and T’Challa, the CIA, and whoever the fuck they handed Strucker over to, that are demanding Bucky be arrested – and it’s those people who then demand Steve’s arrest, for running after Bucky when he broke out of the compound, for harbouring and assisting a fugitive.

Tony still doesn’t know that Steve is on a whole other mission to stop super soldiers taking over the world. Because it’s still the case that ‘Tony might not believe him’ and ‘international law won’t allow him to help’ (And  _ still _ ‘…it’s going to be  _ super _ awks trying to dance around the parts of this I’ve known for two whole years, and avoid the dad-murdering bit…)

Tony is still under as much pressure as he always was, what with wanting so much to keep the team together, and not knowing what the hell Steve is up to. He still turns up at the airport in the same state

So then Steve says to him “It’s that psychologist, he’s behind all of this”

… And Tony says, “Oh, there’s more to this story you say. Well, I’ll pause a moment and hear you out.”

…So why didn’t he say that anyway? What, the Accords has a specific ‘don’t pause to listen’ clause that wouldn’t otherwise apply?

So, no, Tony still says “Alright, we're done. You're gonna turn Barnes over, you're gonna come with us. NOW!”

…And Steve says, “Okay, as long as it doesn’t mean being subjected to an unjust law, I guess you’re right – Bucky will be fine, and the super soldiers can wait”

The fact is, everything that happens at that airport happens because both parties are angry, and anxious and desperate. Because neither of them has the time or the patience to discuss what’s really going on. Because Tony still doesn’t know what Steve is really afraid of, and Steve still can’t tell Tony the whole story. Steve’s plan, and only priority, is stopping an army of super soldiers, and Tony’s only concern is keeping his team together - all of which makes just as much sense, whether it’s the Accords, the US government, or the international order of the stonecutters who have the power to have Steve arrested right then. And regardless of what anyones general political opinion on it is. 

And, as such, the only thing different about the airport scene in a world without the Accords is that, when Tony tells Steve ‘I’m trying to keep you from tearing the Avengers apart!’ Steve does not respond with a needlessly antagonistic and  _ uncharacteristically _ unhelpful ‘You did that when you signed’. Because, of course, they’re still in the same place, even though nobody signed.

In this movie, Steve just says ‘You’re the one tearing us apart, if you try to stop me’. And Tony is equally pissed off, the battle is equally spectacular, the Avengers are arrested and taken to the same jail Stucker ended up in. Steve heads off on the same ill-fated mission, Tony falls for the same bait from Zemo, still ignores Ross to go to the bunker in secret – is still somewhat emotional after watching his father get face punched to death, still reacts rather badly.

Does  _ anything _ change, if The Accords never happen, and International Law continues as it was in Age of Ultron?

…Does it  _ have _ to?

Now, the other question – does it  _ necessarily  _ change the plot, if Bucky doesn’t get involved?

…Yup.

In fact, it renders the entire conflict moot.

Because –  **unlike in the comics** – Steve is never shown to be making a stand against the Accords, per se. He simply says that  _ he _ will not sign them.

Unlike in the comics, Steve is given the  _ option _ of simply not signing them.

We’re not exactly given a lot of detail about what the Accords actually say, who they apply to or when they apply or what penalties there are or…. anything… But the Avengers  _ are _ specifically told that if they don’t sign, they’ll be expected to retire. It’s made clear that enhanced people don’t have to sign or be arrested – in fact, everyone who chooses not to sign is specifically shown not being arrested.

While the Accords are being signed in Vienna, Steve is at Peggy’s funeral. Clint is off playing golf.

There is no indication that anyone is  _ coming _ for either of them, for not signing.

And it’s worth pointing out that Steve never tries  _ to bring down _ the Accords. He doesn’t go to other members of the team, making pleas for them to take a stand - he doesn’t even know who’s signed and who hasn’t. He’s not gathering a team to try and stop what’s happening in Vienna. Having expressed his concerns (...well, not in any detail, but, y’know) and given his opinion, Steve seems to accept that other people can chose to follow the priorities of the UN over their own, or overlook the problems in the detail, or not give a shit about Bucky, or whatever his issue with this law actually was. At this stage in the movie, Steve seems to simply be expressing  _ his _ overall judgement of the thing, and letting others do the same, however apprehensively. 

So, what would have happened, had Zemo not chosen to bring Bucky into the picture, right then?

What  _ if _ … nothing had happened in Vienna? The Accords just get signed into law, as planned?

Does Steve suddenly bolt from the funeral, to make a stand against them?

…Seriously,  _ how _ do the Accords lead to that conflict without some  _ other _ inciting event?

If they just get signed in Vienna, then… what?

Steve ends up sleeping with his own niece, that’s about the worst of it.

Okay, what if the signing of the Accords  _ does _ get bombed… by Zemo?

He doesn’t bother to wear a mask. He just goes in and kills T’Chaka.

…Steve breaks the law to stop  _ Zemo _ being arrested? He immediately puts down his glass of wine and jumps into action, creating all that difficulty for Tony, risking his own arrest and all of his friends, because  _ someone _ is being subjected to this law he doesn’t agree with?

Because, hey, Steve might not  _ know _ the guy – but there’s no more proof Zemo is guilty than there was Bucky. Someone could’ve been wearing a  _ Zemo _ mask, after all. And whoever bombed the UN is going to be subject to the law Steve doesn’t like… actually, he was just waiting for the first person to be arrested, and then he was  _ always  _ going to kick off…?

Well, if you  _ do _ genuinely believe that, completely and without question… hold onto that thought. It’s an idea that gets explored in more detail, later.

But I would just like to posit the  _ possibility _ that, maybe, Steve did things for Bucky that he wouldn’t have done for other people. That he was at least partly motivated by a human loyalty to his friend, and the personal traumas associated with it.

And I would like to suggest that, actually, it’s easy enough to present this film without The Accords – it’s damn near impossible to present the same film without Bucky as Steve’s personal motivation.

So, no, to me, The Accords don’t actually matter-

**But it really matters that they tried to make them matter.**

Marvel Studios artificially made, and then overly simplified, a divide between the characters and the fans – and in so doing, greatly hurt the fandom, and especially hurt Steve.

Because the time spent on creating and (oh so poorly) exploring these generally unrelated philosophical concepts was  _ yet more _ screen time stolen from Steve. Time that could’ve been spent exploring his character, or putting his reasons into context, or examining his emotional state instead… y’know, what with it being  _ his  _ movie, and all…

Because simplifying Steve’s actions down to a black-and-white debate, that we should all be for or against, further robs his character of nuance and complexity.

Because The Accords suddenly  _ stop _ mattering as soon as soon as they’re no longer needed to create conflict-

Consider that,  _ apparently _ , as of Antman and The Wasp, the punishment for what Team Steve did –  _ and _ subsequently breaking out of jail – is two years house arrest. And a term of house arrest in which you’re able to see your friends and family as much as you like…  _ I’ve _ been under a stricter house arrest for three months because of Covid. There is no one on earth who’d say that Scott Lang got a draconian sentence for taking on the entirety of international law, and  _ then _ breaking out of jail.

…Very different impression at the end of CACW, though, wasn’t it? When everyone was stuck on a raft, with no mention of trial. Wanda in a collar. Ross is snorting derisorily at the idea that Bucky should have a lawyer. Even Tony saying, ‘I didn’t think they’d stick you here’, as though to accept that everyone had ended up in a bad place.  _ That _ was the Accords we are told Steve is against,  _ that _ is the (admittedly vague) ideological outcome Steve is opposed to… rendered unimportant and even entirely inaccurate by the time of the next film.

The Accords are characterised entirely differently in CACW to how they apparently work in Antman and The Wasp –

They don’t appear in Spiderman Homecoming at all.

All of which pisses me off greatly.

We are expected to believe that Steve did all that – and led his team through  _ all _ of that – for a piece of legislation that allowed Scott to get off with house arrest, and allowed Tony to mentor Spiderman? A piece of legislation that didn’t stop Scott helping  _ his _ fugitive friends in Ant Man and the Wasp, even though he was on his second strike by then, and doesn’t have nearly the same resources as Tony. Hell, The Accords don’t stop Scott helping a friend run even when he’s still under house arrest, and trying to run a start-up security firm.

But Tony wouldn’t have been able to help Steve fight super soldiers, because… Accords…

Quite amongst other things – the law in AMatW is  _ not _ the law as it was presented in Civil War. It just isn’t.

But then, the law barely makes any sense within the film Civil War.

The characters' secondary responses to it make no sense, and aren’t consistent.

There is no sense that they’ve changed the world in any way, except for when they’re actually being discussed.

A day ago, Steve was saying he couldn’t call Tony for help, because the Accords had changed things, and  _ now _ Tony is only allowed to operate under UN oversight.  _ Now,  _ thanks to the Accords, Tony can only enter foreign countries with UN approval, and only work with people who follow the law, and report anyone who doesn’t.

And then Tony turns up at the airport with a masked, spider-like crime fighter – who is not an Avenger, has not signed The Accords, and certainly hasn’t been given clearance by the UN – and no one even says,  _ what the fuck _ ?

The Accords have no impact on how Tony is able to meet this enhanced person in secret, take him to a foreign country, provide him with tech or keep his identity safe – two minutes after Steve’s entire reasons for not calling Tony was that the Accords would compel him to act within the law. And Steve just snorts,  _ you’ve been busy. _

We aren’t given  _ much _ detail as to what The Accords actually say – but the one rule that is elucidated to us very clearly is that,  _ if  _ you sign this, and then you enter a foreign country without the approval of a specific UN committee, there will be ‘consequences’.

So, T’Challa signs the Accords, enters a foreign country without specific UN approval (on a personal revenge mission, no less) and then  _ he _ goes to Ross to get Nat arrested.

Nat, who did sign The Accords, and actually  _ was _ given permission to go to Germany in the first place.

All of which leads me to believe that the writers change the impact of this law depending on what plot they want to happen, rather than writing a plot that happens as a believable consequence of this specific law. 

Which might be okay, if you weren’t going to so firmly equate everyone’s choices with their stance on this one law.

If you  _ are _ going to fabricate a political divide, and then insist it’s vitally important to the plot – at the very least, you should put some genuine thought into how it works. What specifically the characters object to, how it will fundamentally change the landscape. Consider what the realities of it would be, even if it  _ does _ mildly screw up your little side plot about Tony and Peter. Accept you can’t just ignore it when the Accords would make something else inconvenient - because if you do, you make us wonder why the characters didn’t just do the same. 

If you’re going to insist that people side for or against Steve over the Accords – if you’re going to insist he was motivated purely by that ideological divide, and that his choices are only as reasonable as his underlying political opinion – you should at least  _ decide _ whether The Accords are a) a draconian piece of legislation, that allow people like Bucky to be railroaded through the system without representation, and fundamentally change the Avengers into Ross’ personal army, or b) a distant piece of legislation, which punishes people for international crime and subsequent jail break with two years of family-friendly house arrest, and which in no way impedes Spiderman from becoming a YouTube famous crimefighter, or Tony from mentoring him.

But more importantly – why did it have to be about a law at  _ all _ ?

Why couldn’t it just have been about  _ Steve? _

Just think about that one line:

Tony: I’m trying to keep you from tearing the Avengers apart

Steve: You did that when you signed.

Now, quite apart from the fact that… I don’t actually think Steve would have said this, and that it’s been forced into his mouth by ham-fisted writers trying to push this ‘Accords’ thing – which is a separate gripe I’ll get to later… But, that aside-

It’s quite obviously not the issue in this scene. The real issue is far more interesting, gives far more insight into Steve, and better champions his side in this argument-

Because the real issue here is that Tony doesn’t trust him.

If Tony had bothered to ask what ‘five more just like him’ meant, if he’d said,  _ okay, I trust you, I’ll tell Ross we were too late, go _ , then Tony’s political opinions wouldn’t have mattered a shit.

If Tony hadn’t mentioned Wanda at exactly the wrong time, maybe “I’m not saying it’s impossible…there would have to be safeguards…” would have developed into some sort of grudging compromise, and  _ Steve _ would’ve signed them – he’d have  _ still _ needed Tony to trust him here, to let him go save the world because he  _ knows _ Steve. To at least give him a minute to explain.

And if Steve had been allowed to say  _ that _ instead, if the writers had allowed any spotlight on that at all, maybe the audience would have more reason to consider,

_ Hey, maybe Tony is being a bit of an ass here, even if I agree with him overall. _

_ Hey, maybe they have some trust issues in their relationship anyway, maybe Steve keeping that secret isn’t the only problem _

_ Maybe this is an important personal relationship for both of them, and they both need to take some responsibility for the state of it, and what they’re doing because of it. _

Instead of which, it feels like writers are taking a moment to stick a post-it on each of their foreheads,  _ pro-accords, anti-accords _ , before they run into battle. Suggesting that none of Tony’s mistakes, or Steve’s mistakes, none of their past histories, none of Steve’s challenges and lack of support in dealing with them, none of the behaviour of the other political actors in the film, have anything to do with Tearing The Avengers Apart – this is your not-so-subtle reminder of what they’re supposed to be fighting over.

And it has nothing to do with Steve’s journey, or his personal history, or him as a character.

Steve isn’t angry at Tony for not trusting him, or disappointed that Tony won’t give him the benefit of the doubt, or baffled that Tony won’t take  _ five minutes _ to ask what Steve’s talking about…

No, Steve says he blames Tony’s decision to sign the Accords.

Maybe it would have been a more interesting movie, if when Ross presented that law to the Avengers, fully written and ready to be signed within days, while all of the others were reeling from clearly hearing about this concept for the first time, Steve had turned to Tony and said, “How long have you known about this? Did  _ you _ get to have an input into writing them?”

If, rather than being generically riotously outraged over Wanda’s house arrest, Steve had asked Tony why he got to make that plea deal on behalf of the team all of a sudden, why he didn’t run that past him first - why he hasn’t even  _ told _ Wanda she can’t leave the compound. 

For an even greater head fuck, ask yourself what would have happened if the Accords  _ had _ been introduced exactly as they were, and the characters had simply agreed to live and let live. If Tony hadn’t tried to talk Steve  _ into  _ signing, any more than Steve tried to talk him out of it. If Tony had said “Well, I still think these Accords are right and necessary, and  _ I’m  _ going to sign them - and I’m sad that you aren’t, but hey, I guess that means we can have a retirement party for you now.” If Steve had continued to say “I have my doubts about this law and I’m worried about where it could lead - but good luck trying to work with it, I’ve got a funeral to go to.”

We’re continuously  _ told _ that disagreements over the Accords are the source of the conflict, but really, aren’t the disagreements over the Accords just extensions of the conflicts that were already there…? 

But, because the writers are  _ making _ this about the Accords, they have to keep forcing that in, even when a character based reason would’ve been far more believable and fulfilling - and far more focused on Steve’s story. 

They used Steve as an avatar for one side of a self-made fan war, used all his choices as a metaphor for a vague political opinion – and then they didn’t even explore the politics well.

But, if Steve was any other character, it would have been a different way…

**How It Might Have Been**

Let’s consider how it might have been if, just for once, Steve had been given the same treatment as every other character in the MCU.

If this was just allowed to be  _ his _ movie, about a challenge he overcame and learned from.

A movie in which he told a lie, or kept a secret, or got himself in over his head, or made a reckless decision – a movie that took the time to explore the trauma and humanity behind that mistake.

A movie that accepted his right to be hurt by something, even if he was wrong about something else.

A movie that assumed he could be in the wrong without literally being the villain. 

A movie in which he was allowed to be right about some things and wrong about some things.

Or wrong about some things for understandable reasons.

A movie in which he wasn’t expected to start out perfect, or end up perfect – a movie that assumed he was on an ongoing, human journey.

A movie like Iron Man… Or Iron Man 2…

Or Thor… or Thor 2…

Or Iron Man 3…

Or…

Yeah.

For the sake of clarity, we’ll call this fantasy film  **Captain America 3.**

In Captain America 3, there is no Sokovia Accords.  _ All _ that screen time and dialogue will now be put to better use.

Captain America 3 will start with a literal look inside Steve’s head, akin to the vision that Wanda gave Tony in AoU. A nightmare, a flashback… something that gives the audience a genuine insight into the trauma and fear that Steve lives with every day.

The tone of the film will make clear from the outset that – here, is a character dealing with an impossible burden.

We’ll  _ see _ how much Bucky meant to Steve, and why.

Or we’ll  _ see _ how lonely Steve is in the future, how much it still overwhelms him.

Or we’ll see that Steve is anxious and panicked and unsure about the secret he’s keeping from Tony, consumed with guilt and doubt, forever switching between thinking he  _ should _ tell Tony – and scared of what will happen if he does.

Something.

Then Lagos happens– 

But Steve isn’t left to simply think about it, all alone.

His comment isn’t limited to the on-brand reassurances that he offers Wanda.

His personal reflection time isn’t cut short, because we have to leave room for Sam and Rhodey to throw irrelevant and unanswered points about the Accords at each other.

The audience aren’t left to wonder whether Steve feels horribly guilty for letting those people die, or angry that Wanda’s being blamed for an accident that was clearly CrossBones fault, or scared to death about what’s going to happen – or not really that bothered about your shit right now Wanda, no offence, I’m still thinking about Bucky being tortured somewhere…

And I know that Steve could have been thinking  _ any  _ of those things, in CACW. I am taking no stand on what Steve  _ was _ thinking, during those stoic silences. I’m not saying Captain America 3 should feature any specific version of Steve.

Just that it  _ should _ feature one.

So, how about, by the time of Captain America 3, Steve has developed the sort of complex and trusting relationship with Sam that Tony has with Rhodey.

Therefore, Steve has someone to talk to, break down in front of, act out for. Someone Steve can have emotions in front of. Someone who can show the audience that something is going on underneath Steve’s  _ Captain America _ exterior.

In this film, Sam  _ doesn’t _ just do whatever Steve does, but slower. He challenges Steve, the way Bruce and Rhodey and Pepper each get to challenge Tony at times.

Thus, Steve has a chance to  _ explain _ his argument, articulate his motivations, whatever they may be-

_ And, _ very importantly, that means when Sam  _ does _ help Steve, he does so under his own authority, and for his own stated reason, and aware of the risks he has taken on  _ himself _ . Steve is no longer the figure head for an entire team of people, unable to apologise for or rethink any of it without rendering his friends’ contribution obsolete. Now, Steve is no longer answerable for anything asshole-ish anyone might say on the raft, because they are presented as entirely separate actors, rather than simply spokespeople for his side of the argument. 

In  _ this _ film, Steve can have a panicked little rant at Sam about the way global politics seems to be going. Or why he doesn’t care about politics, he’s only worried about the shit his team are getting. Or why he doesn’t care about any of it, while Bucky is still out there. Whatever.

But what’s especially novel about this movie is that, whatever Steve says, it is not  _ instantly _ taken to be an accurate representation of his thoughts. We do not assume that Steve literally means every word he says, that he’s saying everything he thinks, or that this one rant must sum him up as a person.

Like we watch Tony eagerly offering to help find the Mandarin in Iron Man 3, assuring Rhodey he is  _ fine _ , two minutes before he has his first anxiety attack – and we aren’t all immediately confused and outraged because ‘he just  _ said _ he was okay!’ Even before the panic attack, we’re watching Tony as a human character, aware he might be putting up a mask or lying to himself (and, just in case we need a nudge in that direction, we have Rhodey to bluntly challenge him, and bring up some context for us…)

Well, in Captain America 3, if Steve loses his temper and says “All politicians are as bad as each other, I hate all of them,” Sam  _ doesn’t _ just nod and say he’s got Cap’s back no matter what, thus closing the conversation down. Sam pushes back a bit, says he’s worried about Cap, points out that Cap isn’t sleeping or eating or us under a lot of stress, whatever Steve’s current situation is (the point is,  _ let the audience know! _ )

And,  _ we _ , as an audience are not led to believe that Steve  _ literally _ hates all politicians equally, and that this is an insight into his political views. We don’t all immediately start crafting blog posts explaining why Steve is wrong to believe that Obama is just as bad as Trump. We don’t instantly update our character profile for Steve to include ‘arrogant and politically illiterate’ – because he just  _ said _ he thinks all politicians are the same!

In Captain America 3, we take note of the emotion and the tone of Steve’s outburst (which he’s actually been allowed to have) and all the personal information about Steve’s past and his current struggles (which have directly featured in the movie, this time) and what we actually take from this scene is: Steve is struggling. Steve is  _ trying _ . Steve is reaching a crisis point in his own head.

In this film, through direction and tone, it’s made clear that maybe Steve – having lived through his own death, and lost everyone he ever loved, and living with the responsibility of the Captain America Myth, and doing his best to juggle all these competing and alien priorities, without any support, while his tortured-best-friend is still on the run and Ross is being a total ass – might  _ well _ lose his temper, or make poor choices… And  _ still _ be the hero of the movie.

So, the whole Lagos debacle actually serves as an insight into  _ the main character in the film _ , rather than a continuation of overall plot.

And then, of course, ‘Bucky’ bombs an international event – and kills the king of Wakanda, no less.

Right when the team is dealing with the fallout from the  _ last _ set of Wakandan’s they ‘killed’.

And that’s  _ on top of _ this big secret Steve is keeping from Tony… the thing that makes it so hard to talk to Tony about this latest mission…

Oh, and by the way, Peggy just died. Except in this film it isn’t ‘by the way’ - Steve get’s upset about it. We get to  _ see _ Steve doing more than shedding a single, brave tear. The funeral scene is more than just a setting for characters to introduce themselves to the universe, or discuss what else is going on in the movie. Peggy’s eulogy actually reminds Steve of Peggy, and the life they could have shared – it serves as a reminder to the audience of what Steve is going through, rather than another reference to the plot of the film. 

So, yeah, when the shit suddenly hits the fan, Steve  _ does _ make the snap decision to break the law, and side with Bucky, and not explain to Tony  _ why _ …

And what’s really revolutionary is that – in Captain America 3 – it’s  _ accepted  _ that Steve makes this choice because he’s scared, and stressed, and traumatised. It  _ accepts _ that this is a bad choice, made for emotional rather than rational reasons.

…Like it was probably a bad choice, made for emotional rather than rational reasons, when Tony gave his (and Peppers) home address to the world’s media in Iron Man 3.

Even if he wasn’t wrong about having to take on ‘The Mandarin’, and certainly isn’t wrong to care so much about Happy.

…And it was probably a bad choice, made for emotional reasons, when Tony decided to put on his suit, get drunk, and literally fist-fight Rhodey at his 40 th birthday party.

Even if he _was_ goaded into it, and turned out to be correct about keeping the suit out of Justin Hammer’s hands.

…And it was probably a bad choice, made for emotional reasons, when Tony decided to pursue a defence against aliens at all costs, and hide the project from his team  _ because _ he thought they’d have an inconvenient input.

Even if he wasn’t wrong, _in general_ , about Earth needing a better defence system against alien threats.

And, in that same vein – in Captain America 3, Steve is  _ allowed _ to make a less-than-perfect choice-

And at no point is it suggested that he must therefore be a bad person.

And at no point is it suggested that Steve must therefore be wrong about _everything_.

At no point is it even hinted at, that this one choice is a permanent representation of who Steve _is_.

So, by that token – yes, Steve  _ does _ decide to help Bucky for partly selfish reasons, and yes, he  _ does _ chicken out of breaking Tony’s heart with the whole truth at exactly that moment.

And,  _ begrudgingly _ , Sam gets dragged into this. In the same ‘begrudging’ way that Bruce got dragged along with it in AoU – in such a way that he’ll be considered entirely separate to Steve, when it comes to the climax.

Steve, Bucky and Sam get arrested in Bucharest. 

In Captain America 3, this is the equivalent of the scene where Vanko disrupts the Monaco Grand Prix in Iron Man 2.

Or the scene where Tony has a nightmare in Iron Man 3, and calls the suit, and scares Pepper to death.

In Captain America 3, it is treated the same way as either of those scenes-

Here is a moment where the protagonist is first faced with the main challenge of the movie.

A moment that demonstrates the true extent of the hero’s burden.

A moment where the hero could make the right choice…

But doesn’t.

And we as the audience retain our faith in them, and accept this background information to the  _ overall _ journey of the movie – and trust that our favourite will come good in the end.

And, just like Tony continues to hide his palladium poisoning in Iron Man 2, even after the grand prix…

Or like Tony choses to hide the true extent of his suit-building from Pepper in Iron Man 3, even after his nightmares put her at risk…

Just like those times, in Captain America 3 we see Steve  _ still _ not tell Tony the truth, even after the arrest-

And still, we’re rooting for him.

We know  _ why _ he’s struggling with this.

We still believe that Steve could be right about Bucky being innocent.

We know that keeping that secret isn’t a  _ purely _ selfish choice, that it is a little bit complicated – hell, why not, we’ll even have Steve discuss  _ that _ out loud with someone.

Have Sam, or Nat, ask if maybe they should tell Tony about what Zola said. Instead of having to say ‘Can’t. Accords.’ in such a way to close down all discussion, and erase all the personal complexities, have him articulate his reasons.

Literally say out loud that he’s scared he’ll leave Tony with that mental image forever, when it’ll do no actual good. That he wishes  _ he’d _ never seen his mother's body, after she died of TB, that he still sees that image when he falls asleep at night.

Or that he doesn’t think Tony will trust him, that there are problems in their relationship and he doesn’t believe Tony would even have enough respect to hear him out before he flew off the handle. 

Or that he doesn’t know  _ what _ Zola told him – Zola  _ implied _ that Tony’s parents had been murdered, and then showed Steve a grainy image of what might have been Bucky. Steve doesn’t even know if that’s even what Zola  _ was _ saying, and that’s assuming he wasn’t just making the whole thing up. When they’ve  _ talked  _ to Bucky, once he’s safe and well, when they know what’s going on,  _ then _ Steve will tell Tony…

And maybe the audience don’t take  _ that _ completely at face value either. Maybe the audience take as a given that it’s going to be more than one reason, that there would be a little bit of truth to that, without it being the whole story. Maybe we’re thinking, even as we’re watching it… at least part of this is because you can’t bear to tell him. Because it’s going to be horrible, and because it’s going to lead to all sorts of awkward problems, and because you’ve just left it so late that you can’t tell him  _ now _ .

Maybe the audience even starts to look at Steve and  _ empathise _ , to see conflicts and challenges they recognise. Maybe we think back to when we found out our best friends’ husband was cheating, but just couldn’t bear to break her heart – and  _ now she’s going to be so pissed that I’ve known for a whole week _ …. Maybe we think back to when we  _ knew _ we had to tell our dad we fucked up, but we just couldn’t force the words out at the time –  _ and now he’s going to be so angry that I didn’t tell him a month ago _ . Maybe we all put ourselves in Steve’s shoes and realise that we’ve been there, and we know what it’s like. And yeah, it's still a mistake, and it’s never going to end well. But it’s not simply a case of Steve being ‘arrogant. End discussion.’

So, yeah, understanding though we are by this point, we know Steve is fucking up, at the end of Act 1.

(And yeah, we’re still at the end of Act 1. We’ve cut a lot of political arguments out.)

And _then_ , of course, Zemo manages to sneak in whist disguised as a therapist.

Bucky gets triggered.

Tony nearly gets shot.

… In Captain America 3, this would be the equivalent of the scene in AoU when ULTRON interrupts the party.

Or the bit in Iron Man 3, where Tony (and Peppers) house gets bombed.

The moment at which the hero’s mistake is revealed, and the consequences laid out for them.

The moment at which they have a chance to make amends, and learn, and grow, and redeem themselves.

The moment the team comes together to fight the  _ real _ enemy at the airport.

No one other than Steve has to wait until the last minutes of their own movie to face their mistake. No one else has their apology read in voice over format, just as the credits roll.

Everyone else gets to confront their error by the end of Act 2 at the very latest. Everyone else gets at least 20 minutes of screen time dedicated to their redemption. Everyone else gets to not only make their apology, but see it accepted and included in the narrative.

If this had been anyone else’s movie, Steve would’ve been ‘found out’ when Bucky was triggered.

And, if this had been anyone else’s movie – the super soldier threat would have been real.

Yes, Zemo knows about Bucky, and he’s using the personal divides within the team to create tension and tear them apart – he still shows Tony the video. This time, Zemo brings the video with him when he triggers Bucky, let’s Tony watch over the screen as Bucky narrates with his Mission Report. 

But Zemo has a bigger plan than just Turn The Avengers On Each Other – and as such, Steve’s contribution is not boiled down to simply ‘falling for it’.

There would have been an understanding that, yes, Steve was wrong not to tell Tony everything sooner, but on the other hand, he  _ was _ right about the world being at risk.

As opposed to us finding out that Steve wasn’t actually right about any of it – turning what were entirely reasonable responses, given what he knew at the time, into a series of mistakes that Zemo wanted him to make.

Steve and Tony would’ve had their emotional confrontation  _ then _ .

They’d have argued. Tony would’ve lost his shit over the video. Tony still would’ve gone for Bucky - although this will be more like the scene in AoU, where the team are fighting over Vision’s slowly awakening form. A moment when things are heated and people get hurt - but not allowed to run longer than a few minutes, and ending with Tony being pulled away from his unreasonable reaction.

(You know, like when Steve yelled at Thor, and got him to stop throttling Tony earlier in AoU. Or like when Thor leapt in to make sure Vision still got… born? Is it Born?)

Like Tony and Rhodey physically fought in Iron Man 2.

Like Tony and Pepper argued over a big rabbit in Iron Man 3.

And  _ then _ – if this was anything like anyone else’s movie – Steve would’ve gotten a  _ whole act _ to let that lesson settle in, and the consequences unfold.

A whole part of the movie where the team had to fix their differences and deal with the Super Soldier threat.

Like all those scenes at Clint’s farmhouse, when Tony got to argue over woodcutting, and have deep conversations with Nick, as he was completing his emotional journey.

Like all those scenes in Tennessee, when Tony was leaving grovelling voicemails to Pepper and snarking at a kid and having panic attacks – and generally working towards a conclusion.

Like  _ that _ scene in the doughnut shop, with Tony, Nick and Nat - and the whole section of the film just after, dedicated to Tony finding himself through strawberries and engineering and old videos of his dad.

Over the course of this act Steve would’ve faced his mistake, recognise the underlying challenges that led to it, and begin to see a way forward.

Tony would get a chance to see the reasons Steve made that mistake, and that maybe he needs to offer Steve a bit more support and understanding.

And then, of course, if this was  _ anyone else’s movie _ – Steve would get to save the day.

In his own movie.

Following the plan set out by every Iron Man movie, every Thor movie, both Spiderman movies, the Guardians of the Galaxy movies, Captain Marvel, Doctor Strange and The Incredible Hulk – Steve should at least get to be the one to save the day in  _ his own damn movie,  _ yes? 

The airport scene would be The Avengers Vs The Super Soldiers – and, at some point, it would feature a moment for Steve to get his redemption. A moment when he can specifically show that he  _ does _ trust Tony now – and yeah, maybe a moment for Tony to show that  _ he _ recognises his failures to communicate, that he’s working on it too.

A moment like when Tony is given a nuke to fly through a wormhole, as a specific narrative call back to Steve’s ‘you never make the sacrifice play’ line.

Like when Tony creates Vision, specifically so that his ‘meddling’ with AI can become a balanced force for both good and evil in the movie. Or when  _ he’s _ given the chance to risk his life blowing up Sokovia, to help redeem himself from creating ULTRON in the first place.

Like when Tony’s army of suits come to his rescue in IM3, just before he gets to symbolically blow them up for Pepper.

Like when Thor gets to defeat Hela, or when Peter gets to take down the man he should never have trusted, or the Guardians work out how to defeat Ronin  _ together _ . 

A moment that actually acts as a book end to the narrative arc of the film - for the characters personal journey, as well as just the plot.

A moment when we realise that, yeah, if Steve had just told Tony the truth sooner, a lot of shit wouldn’t have happened… But then, if it weren’t for Steve, an army of Super Soldiers would’ve taken over the world.

…And then, obviously, if it was any other movie, it would end with Steve and Tony shaking hands next to a car.

Tony accepting that Steve had made a mistake – just as Steve did, when he shook Tony’s hand at the end of Age of Ultron.

Steve, accepting and learning from his own failings in a balanced way – just like…

Well, every other MCU hero, ever.

Maybe Steve et al still have to go on the run – hey, you don’t even have to change the plot of IW and EG much, to do this.

Or, maybe Bucky just gets absorbed onto the team, his past crimes and current arrest warrants conveniently forgotten, like Wanda’s were at the end of AoU.

**…An entirely different film, yeah?**

…Here’s the thing.

If you look back over ‘Captain America 3’, as just outlined, you’ll notice that it doesn’t actually  _ change _ anything about Steve’s actions, or motivations.

It changes what the writers and directors choose to  _ show _ .

It changes how the  _ other _ characters react.

It alters the actual events of the film.

But Steve still makes all the same choices, for all the same reasons, in this movie.

He can even still be thinking the same things – I’m not prescriptive about  _ what _ he says to Sam when he rants, or  _ what _ he apologises for when he speaks to Tony, or  _ which _ reasons he’d specifically cite for keeping that secret.

And I’m not undoing anything Steve did, or unsaying anything he said. Other than a few Accords-based jabs, (not that many, you’ll notice, even when we erase the Accords entirely…) which, hey, you can still say Steve thought that – this is still the Steve who would’ve said all that, had the Accords come up. 

Which they don’t, in this movie. 

Like the Super Soldiers being a fake thing doesn’t happen to come up in this movie, so I’m guessing at what Steve might’ve done had they been real – but I’m not changing anything that  _ Steve  _ did or thought to make that happen. 

I’ve not tried to redeem him by having him ‘come clean’ any earlier - just taken the choice out of his hands. 

I’ve not had him deviate from his dedication to Bucky in order to make him seem fairer to Tony - just changed  _ events  _ so that he didn’t have to make a direct choice in the final five minutes of the film. 

I’ve not not had him change his political view. I’ve not made him any more flexible or articulate in order to make him more likable. 

Essentially, this is the same Steve in different circumstances. You can even take your own personal HC Steve and slot him into these circumstances – give him whatever lines you think he should have said. Whatever the Steve, I’m simply suggesting we show more of him, and  _ frame the events of the film around his personal story. _

Which  _ does _ change it from a film in which half the audience is encouraged to blindly accept that Steve is ‘in the right’, into a film in which the entire audience is shown that, yeah, this time, Steve screwed up…

And yet, Steve comes off far better this way, don’t you think?

**…But You Did Say You Were Team Tony, Yeah?**

Yup – and, believe me, I’ve spent the last four years angrily rallying on Tony’s behalf, bemoaning the treatment he receives in the MCU-

And, by the way, please don’t think any of my above ranting is because I think Tony is given  _ too much _ insight, or that we  _ only _ think Tony is good because of the spotlight he receives-

Tony  _ is _ good… It’s simply that we needn’t have known that as an audience, even if he remained the same character, had that spotlight not been there.

Tony has been given  _ enough _ insight – I’m not suggesting any of that should be taken away from him.

I’m not even saying that Tony has been treated fairly by the writers… but it would be a separate essay, about all that.

What I  _ am _ saying is that, in with all the other shit Tony gets, he does at least get something Steve is never given.

Tony is at least treated like a complex, human character.

He does at least get to have his own movie be about his own personal journey.

In spite of which, yes, I’ve  _ also _ spent the last four years angrily ranting on behalf of Tony. Putting forward his point of view, pointing out where Steve made mistakes, trying to get people to stop guessing what was in the Accords and answer the real question-

Just wanting Steve to acknowledge his fuck up, act like he cared whether Tony was crushed or not-

And it took me a little while to realise… I was mainly mad at Steve for things he  _ hadn’t _ done. Things he  _ hadn’t _ said. Things he didn’t  _ seem _ to feel.

Don’t get me wrong. As I started off saying, I also think Steve was wrong about some of the things he did and said – those are the things I want him to apologise for, after all.

But  _ those _ things – keeping a secret when you’re scared, making a bad choice under difficult circumstances, losing your temper in an argument – those are things I could so easily forgive. Things I’ve forgiven Tony for, and everyone else in the MCU.

Those aren’t the things that really inspire that heartfelt anger in me. They’re not the reason I’m still thinking about this, all these years later, up to… Jesus Christ, nine thousand words…Oops.

But the reason I’m  _ still _ going on with this,

The reason I walked out of the cinema  _ heartbroken _ for Tony

The reasons I wanted to punch Steve in his perfect teeth, was because of what  _ wasn’t _ there-

That we hadn’t  _ seen _ Steve feel bad for lying to him,

That we hadn’t  _ seen _ Steve so much as question the rightness of his perspective, or the methods he used.

That we hadn’t seen Steve resolve any of conflicts he’d been a part of,

We didn’t know whether Steve had changed his mind over any of it, or regretted any of it, or if he had rethought any of it…

And it took me a while to realise that all the things I was  _ really _ furious about were the writers fault, not Steve’s.

**When It’s The Writer’s Fault** .

There is a distinction between things we can be annoyed at a character for, and things we should be angry at the writers for.

Now, on the surface of it, I admit this sounds ridiculous – after all, the writers  _ create _ the characters, right? They decide on Steve’s actions, and dialogue, and choices, like they decide everything else – surely, you accept that the universe is fake, in which case it’s  _ all _ the writers fault, or you talk about the universe as though there are no writers…?

I would argue, however, that you can actually divide these criticisms into two clear groups.

If you’re going to talk about a character as though they’re a real person, and analyse their choices, and come to a conclusion about whether they’re a ‘good person’ or not, then yes, you have to accept that the things they say, the actions they take and the choices they make are ‘theirs’. And, obviously, you don’t  _ have _ to discuss fictional characters in those terms – but you can, and I do. And in order to do so I have to accept Steve as I find him. Even though I know that it’s a writer behind all of that, too.

And I accept, sometimes this distinction isn’t  _ quite _ that easy to swallow...

There  _ are _ times when I see characters say something that is so obviously outside of their previous characterisation, contrary to their own motivations – things that literally make no sense – and it’s so,  _ so _ obviously because it’s required for the plot.

When they’re facing off at the airport, and Steve says, “There are five more just like him”, and Tony doesn’t even pause to say, “eh?”

Literally  _ anyone  _ would pause there and ask what the hell Steve was talking about.

You try going into a room and saying “there are five more just like him”, without context, to someone who has no idea that you’re thinking about an army of Super Soldiers in Siberia – they  _ will _ stop what they’re doing and ask what the hell you’re talking about. They will at least say,  _ eh? _

It’s not about whether Tony could believably be that angry, or short-tempered, or short-sighted. This is literally a question of how human beings talk.

But, of course, if Steve had explained the Super Soldiers thing at the airport, it would have derailed the whole plot, and disrupted  _ the fight scene _ . And apparently, no one could be bothered to think of a more realistic, in character response.

Or, how quickly both Steve and Sam dismiss the idea of calling the team and explaining the Super Soldier thing, after Bucky first breaks out of the compound. Even ignoring all my above ranting about why ‘the Accords’ doesn’t make sense as a reason – Steve just  _ would _ have given that more thought, at the very least.

He’s the greatest strategist in the world.

He has a whole relationship with Nat – who even knows about the whole secret-two-year-search-for-Bucky thing.

He must feel just a little bit guilty about cutting them out, he must at least pause to think that maybe they could  _ help _ fight these super soldiers.

Steve doesn’t think of, say, going to a payphone and calling Nat with an update – even if he’s not going to give away their location, even if he’s  _ not _ sure she’ll believe him… what harm could it do?

He doesn’t even hesitate, flinch, mutter,  _ I don’t know, Sam… _

And it’s so obviously because the storyboard had the plot outlined as ‘Steve gathers his team in secret, while Tony goes to recruit Peter’. Because the whole movie ends if Steve calls Nat and explains what’s really going on. If Tony secretly suits off to Siberia in twenty minutes flat, as he’s apparently able to, to check it out. If Nat gets curious, and googles Dr Theo Broussard, and quite clearly sees that he looks nothing like Daniel Brühl. If any of the things Steve would reasonably have considered had actually happened.

And that one especially pisses me off because… they could have put  _ some _ thought into that one. Even if it  _ had _ to end with Steve not calling anyone… Have him try, and be intercepted. Have him struggle with the decision. Have Steve say he’s sure all of Tony’s phones will be bugged, by now.

Instead of which, it’s like they just didn’t bother to write that scene…

_ But _ , by my own internal logic… I have to accept that  _ Tony _ didn’t stop to ask Steve what he was talking about, at the airport.  _ Steve _ didn’t give enough thought to telling the rest of the team the truth. As much as it pains me, as much as I want to blame the writers for putting words in their mouths that they never would have said… welp, they said them.

So, I guess I’ll have to accept that Tony was that  _ bafflingly _ pig headed once, and Steve was that bizarrely,  _ uncharacteristically _ eager to run into battle on his own, without thinking about it. Once.

Even with this in mind – most of the problems with this movie are  _ still _ a case of what the writers did wrong. Things that the characters can’t possibly be held responsible for.

Things like where they choose to begin and end the movie.

The scenes they choose to include, the ones they choose to reference, the ones they simply leave out.

The events they choose to use as catalysts, and how those events unfold.

For example –  _ the letter _ that Steve sends at the end of Civil War.

Much has been said about this letter, and the apology contained within.

And, honestly, in my humble opinion… it’s not a  _ great _ apology, really.

And, yeah, as much as I’d like to blame the writers for that… well, Steve said it, so I guess I have to blame the character for the words he chose and the tone he took.

However – if you again think back to Age of Ultron. To the hours immediately after everyone finds out that Tony had been working on ULTRON in secret, just after they’ve been beaten up by Tony’s creation, and they’re contemplating all the damage that ULTRON could potentially do… And Tony starts snickering.

Thor: You think this is funny?

Tony Stark: No. It's probably not, right? Is this very terrible? Is it so...is it so...it is. It's so terrible.

Thor: This could've been avoided if you hadn't played with something you don't understand.

Tony Stark: No, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. It is funny. It's a hoot that you don't get why we need this.

…It’s not a  _ great _ apology either, is it?

Initially, Tony  _ doesn’t  _ acknowledge that his choice was in any way reckless or wrong, he  _ does _ derail the conversation with reminders of his own suffering, he doesn’t exactly strike an admonished tone –  _ all _ the things that we call Steve out for in that letter, in fact.

And we as an audience listen to that with an empathetic ear. We acknowledge that part of his reaction is denial, and guilt. We expect that his view may chance and develop, in time. We’re sympathetic to the struggling he references, and acknowledge that it  _ does _ form part of understanding his actions – even if, objectively, a conversation when he’s supposed to be apologising might not be the best time to bring it up...

If Tony was going to make a  _ good _ apology right then, acknowledging the wrong he’d just done and the way it had hurt people, acknowledging what he had to do to put things right, then it would have gone something like,

“I’m really sorry guys, I thought I knew what I was doing, but it turns out I was way over my head. And, more to the point, I let my fears and my guilt motivate me – I was skipping past important safeguards, because I so much wanted this to work. I should have told you what I was doing, because maybe your input would’ve stopped this from happening – but more to the point, I should’ve told you because you’re my friends, and it was disrespectful to try and deny you an opinion purely because I didn’t think I’d like it. And that’s what it was, I can’t deny that. I specifically kept this from you because I didn’t want to deal with the ‘man was not meant to meddle medley’, and that was wrong, and I’m so sorry. I’ll do whatever it takes to make this right.”

That would’ve been the  _ perfect _ apology, right off the bat.

But, of course, we don’t expect Tony to give the perfect apology, right then.

We’re not comparing what he actually says to the hypothetical apology he could have given.

We listen for the emotion in it, we allow for the specific situation, we take into account all the fears and traumas that have led to this decision – and we know what they are, because the director literally showed us.

We still don’t think Thor is right to throttle him, however bad an apology that was, however hurt Thor is right now.

We still think his imperfect apology could include a few reasonable points – we still listen for them.

We don’t even expect the perfect apology from Tony by the time we get to the farmhouse.

But maybe it wouldn’t sound the same – maybe we wouldn’t feel the same about Tony – if the writers had chosen to end the movie at that point, or write Tony out of it.

If they’d watched the vision that Wanda put in his head and decided,  _ nah, we’ll cut that one – just show his eyes flashing red and leave it at that. _

If they’d cut that scene of him talking to Nick, _ cos no one needs to hear all that stuff about watching them all die and being the only one left. _

If Tony had never been given a moment to turn to Steve and say, “Like the old man said – together.”

We can still assume these things happened to Tony. We can still assume he thought the same things. We can even assume those things were scripted, filmed and left on the cutting room floor – so,  _ Tony, _ in that situation, is still the same guy who had this exact rant when he was first challenged over ULTRON, for the same reasons, in the same way.

But if that’s all we get to see from him, then it's not quite the same, is it?

_ That’s _ a writer’s choice.

Now, if you consider the voicemail that Tony left of Pepper, during Iron Man 3 – often cited as a much better apology than Steve’s.

And, again, in my opinion, it  _ is _ a much better apology than Steve’s. Tony accepts that he’s the one at fault, acknowledges the hurt he’s caused, offers to make amends, doesn’t derail the conversation by talking about himself… Not bad, all in all.

…It’s also a better apology than the first apology Tony makes in that movie, actually. When he’s just been caught trying to fob Pepper off with an animated suit – and doesn’t say, _you’re right, I’m a hot mess right now, and I acknowledge that is no reason to treat you badly, so I’m going to stop lying to you right now - actually,_ _that suit is Mark 42_. But that’s beside the point.

The point is, if Iron Man 3 had  _ ended _ with Tony leaving that voice mail – even though  _ that’s _ a good apology – Tony still doesn’t come over nearly as well, for doing the exact same things. If we as an audience watch a movie that is framed as being about Tony’s fall from grace, if it starts with Tony ignoring his PTSD, and ends with him all alone in Tennessee, having realised that he'd gotten it wrong… Doesn’t quite have the same impact either.

You might find yourself looking at Tony and thinking… You petulantly gave Pepper’s home address to a terrorist group – having already spent weeks lying to her about how many suits you were building, and locking her out of your life – and you’re just going to leave a voicemail saying how sorry you are… and that’s it?

And it isn’t Tony or Steve who get to decide when ‘that’s it.’

If the writers had rolled the credits at that point in Iron Man 3, Tony would’ve come over as much more of an asshole, for doing exactly the same things he did in canon.

If Steve had been given a bit more time in his own movie, I’d at least know  _ what _ he was feeling, one way or the other – I wouldn’t be angry because he didn’t  _ seem  _ to feel much about it.

If there had been a whole third act of CACW, focused only on Steve, that ended with him leaving that unopened text message I swear to God is there when Tony looks at the flip phone in IW (is that just me? If anyone’s still reading this, theories?)

I spent a long time thinking I was  _ so _ angry about that letter… But really, I’m angry that the writers didn’t show us anything past that.

Like I’d probably be more angry at Tony, if the same choices had been made in his movies. If he’d never been allowed to get as far as “And then ULTRON – my bad” in CACW, because he’d had to Nomad off around Europe as soon as ULTRON was discovered.

And, in case you’ve been internally yelling since about 30 pages back -  _ Tony didn’t keep the secret for two years though! He only lied for two days- _

Well, actually, no - he got  _ caught out _ after two days.

Like external events forced him to stop building suits in secret, and blow them up, after however long he’d been lying to Pepper.

Like we don’t know whether he would  _ ever _ have told his friends about his palladium poisoning - whether Rhodey and Pepper would’ve otherwise simply discovered him dead in his bed one day, had the plot of IM2 not unfolded as it did. 

It is a case of fact that Tony has never kept so personal a secret from Steve, for so long… But we can’t say for a fact that he  _ wouldn’t _ have. In fact, there seems to be some evidence that Tony  _ would _ hide something personal, or lie to a loved one (for entirely understandable reasons that are always explored) for longer than two days… for as long as it takes the writers to provide him with a catalyst for confronting his mistake, and changing his life. 

And it’s not so much ‘ _ it’s not Steve’s fault that the writers didn’t push him to do the right thing!’ _ \- again, the line is sometimes a little fuzzy. Accepting Steve as a ‘real person’, I can only judge his actions on what occurred - and what occurred was that you kept a very personal secret from a friend for two years, and you shouldn’t have needed an external event to make you see that. 

But it is worth noting, when we’re comparing characters, that most others have simply never been  _ allowed _ a chance to keep a secret for this long, as opposed to proving themselves better at dealing with it than Steve. Perhaps that’s because the writers were prepared to accept that those characters had something to deal with. Perhaps it's because, with those characters, their personal growth is the point of the story, so it makes sense that the plot would be built around it and hurry us towards it and focus on that point. Rather than using those characters emotions and personal journey to explain and hurry us through and refocus the plot-

I can’t blame the writers for the fact that Steve kept that secret so long - but I can acknowledge that it’s because of the writers that Tony  _ didn’t _ . Tony can take credit for how he responded to that challenge, but he can’t really take credit for taking it on. And I think I realised it was important to remember that, when I was being  _ so _ angry at Steve for not taking it on. 

And, in a more general way, I realised I’d been angry at Steve for not having any doubts or regrets – I’d been thinking of him as arrogant – when, actually, he’s never  _ shown _ as being entirely confident, or unremorseful, or unwilling to look from another perspective, either.

Just because he never says his doubts out loud, doesn’t necessarily mean he doesn’t have them.

Just because he doesn’t get a chance to reflect on his regrets before the movie finishes, doesn’t mean he’ll never have any.

Just because he doesn’t want to sign the Accords, and breaks them to help Bucky, doesn’t  _ necessarily _ mean he ‘thinks he knows better than 116 countries’. It doesn’t  _ necessarily  _ mean he thinks he should just be able to go into any country he likes, unquestioned. 

It  _ could  _ just as easily be that he thinks the UN are the wrong people to be answerable to. It could be that he’s read this law, and while it makes sense in theory, in practice it’s very worrying. It could be that, obviously he knows he can’t just intervene in any nation, regardless of their national laws - but that doesn’t mean he wants to carry on calling himself an Avenger, if they’re going to start reflecting the UNs priorities rather than his own. If the  _ UN  _ are going to reimagine the Avengers as, say, a western security force that champions capitalism - as might happen, once the team loses control - maybe he doesn’t want to be one anymore. That’s not actually the same as saying he should be above the law, per se. 

Maybe It  _ could  _ be that he accepts the UN has a right to arrest him for this – but he just thinks the Bucky thing is a special circumstance, so he’s going to go against them anyway. 

I mean, hey, I don’t know that he  _ does _ have doubts or regrets about it, either… I can’t possibly know what his specific thoughts on the Accords are, because actually the Accords barely exist. 

But I got to thinking that I couldn’t say for  _ sure _ that Steve was thinking any of the things I was mad about…

That I’d taken an absence of evidence to be evidence of absence, even when a more thoughtful reading of the character would’ve suggested that the kinder interpretation made more sense. 

And yeah, I take some responsibility for being a little bit unreasonable about all this, back in 2016. For being more emotional than rational in my analysis, at times. For not realising that I wasn’t comparing like for like, when I compared the end of CACW with the final outcome of any other movie. For blaming Steve as a character for decisions that the studio made.

I mean, to be honest, I’m still on Tony’s side, and I’m still basically as mad as I ever was-

But, these days,  _ mostly _ I’m mad at the writers.

For, one, cynically engineering a hashtag promoting conflict at the expense of basically everyone.

But, two, for having a ‘Steve problem’ in general (and that’s the reason it was Steve’s movie, and Steve’s characterisation, that was used to sell that hashtag, so the two things are kinda linked...)

It’s a problem that came to a head in this film but, like I say, was already obvious beforehand.

A problem that left both Steve and Tony fans furious at the end of the last movie – it all comes from the same issue.

**The Steve Problem**

Now, obviously, I don’t think the writers completely failed on Steve - he wouldn’t be my second favourite character if they hadn’t written him  _ at all _ . And, as this is an essay specifically on my issues with his characterisation, it’s obviously going to come over more negative than if it were a general essay on Steve - which would include a lot more of the positive qualities that play no part in  _ this _ particular argument. Which is that Steve is  _ under _ written, that his character moments have been unfairly framed and prioritised - but obviously not that there was never anything to spark my interest.

And, of course, Steve is someone that a lot of things happen  _ to _ . He gets to be involved in a lot of plot, and we get a lot of life events for his character bio, so there is at least  _ that _ , when it comes to filling in the gaps ourselves.

And - just because it doesn’t get said nearly enough -  _ thank God for Chris Evans. _

Seriously, I know much is made of RDJs role in creating Tony Stark and carrying the MCU - and rightly so, all quite true. However, just imagine what Steve Rogers would have been, were it not for the sheer amount of feeling and direction that Chris Evans put into every little look and gesture. If he’d just given a reasonable performance of the script as it appears on the page. A central character of the MCU, and one of the central relationships, and one of the main arcs of the Infinity Saga, would have been entirely different - a far more shallow and less interesting version of what we got. And, honestly, I think the entire success of the MCU project was almost as much because of Chris Evans’ understanding of his character, and his loyalty to that interpretation, as it was Robert Downey Jr.

But, yeah, for all of that, there’s still a problem.

And, really, it all boils down to the fact that  _ Steve can’t be flawed. _

**Just Stay What You Are - A Good Man**

  
  


See, everyone else in the MCU starts off as a bit an asshole. 

They’re either arrogant and immature, or they’re running from a past mistake, or sometimes they literally used to be the killer assassin bad guy. Sometimes all of the above. This is the story the writers are comfortable with - the redemption arc. The story of someone who starts off with human flaws and relatable problems, and becomes the hero by the end.

The trouble with Steve is that, unlike everyone else - he was  _ always  _ good.

Steve starts out as the man who would do the right thing, stand up for the little guy, make the sacrifice play. He’s the person who was already the hero, even when he was a skinny athmatic kid from Brooklyn. That’s kind of… the point. 

Whereas everyone else is a lump of coal waiting for pressure to turn them into a diamond,  _ Steve _ was supposed to be the diamond in the rough. 

Now, actually, this  _ doesn’t _ mean that Steve couldn’t have flaws, then or now - as Erskine said at the time, Steve never had to be  _ the perfect soldier _ to be a good man. You could have left him room to improve - hell, even given him a few full on, ugly ass character flaws - and still had him be a rare and heroic person. 

But I will accept, it’s  _ harder _ to craft a well rounded, relatable character like that.

The lamentable fact of human nature is that more people relate to the kid getting bullied in the cinema, too scared or ashamed to do anything about it, or the kid who’s uncomfortable with the bullying and doesn’t know how to intervene, or the oblivious kid in the front row who’s too engrossed in their own problems to notice, or even the bully themselves, than relate to the kid who stands up for the little guy, every time. 

Even the people who grew up and got past those flaws, the people who cringe about the kids they teased in highschool, or did learn to speak up when these things were happening, still think back to their previous mistakes and wince. 

A lot of people  _ never _ get past those flaws and failings. They’re  _ still _ too weak, or scared, or overwhelmed by life to step in and do the right thing - especially not  _ every time. _

And there’s an MCU character for all of those people.

There is a story that redeems each of those failings. A story that each of those people can project themselves onto and see how, with just a little bit of movie magic, someone like them can still be a hero in the end.

Just because you  _ used _ to let someone bully you, doesn’t mean you can’t become Nebula.

Just because you  _ used _ to be shallow and self interested as a teenager, doesn’t mean you can’t grow into Tony Stark.

Just because you were the bad guy in high school, doesn’t mean you can’t be on the same team as Nat and Wanda now. 

However heroic and enhanced each of these characters, we can see ourselves in them. 

However outlandish and fantastic the situation they find themselves in, we can still imagine how  _ we _ would feel in that situation. Because we met them when they were someone like us. We saw ourselves in them  _ before _ they were a hero, so we can carry that empathy with us when they become something impossible. 

And then there’s Steve, who was  _ always _ better than most people. 

Steve would  _ always _ have done more than we would have done. 

With Steve, you’re asking the audience to watch the story of who they  _ want _ to be. You’re asking them to watch a story that they’ve never been in themselves, to relate to a character who thinks and acts differently to them, and always did. 

Even the people who  _ did _ grow out of being the high-school bully, or the silent bystander, or the helpless victim, by the time they saw this movie - they probably  _ still _ aren’t as selfless, and as determined, as brave or forward-thinking or as  _ consistent _ as Steve is in the first scene of his very first film. 

If you ask them to imagine what it must feel like to want so much to enter a war that you’ll certainly get killed in, for no reason other than it seems wrong not to… you’re asking them to imagine a thought process they’ve never had, rather than relate back to a motivation they recognise. 

If you ask someone how it would feel, to be facing off against yet  _ another _ set of bullies, knowing full well that you  _ are _ going to get your head kicked it, simply because you cannot bear to ignore an injustice, even if it doesn’t affect you directly, even if you don’t know any of the people involved… well, they can’t. Because anything  _ they _ would feel in that situation would’ve stopped them getting into the situation in the first place - most people  _ do _ relate to watching something unfair happen to a stranger, and burning with injustice over it… and still can’t imagine telling a gang of people,  _ I can do this all day _ , while they pummeled them, no… If you try to  _ make _ them put themselves in that position, for the thousandth time, they end up imagining being frustrated and disillusioned and walking away-

None of which Steve does.  _ Ever _ . 

They don’t even know anyone like that. They’ve never seen that happen. 

And, again, none of this means Steve can’t be a believable or relatable character. 

For a start - you don’t  _ have _ to see yourself in a character, to understand and love them. You don’t have to have been a victim of abuse to love Nebula, or see yourself as a reformed villain to like Loki, or have had a drinking problem to relate to Valkyrie. If you show the human side of someone, even  _ dissimilar  _ humans will be able to empathise with and care for them… that’s literally how we make friends, and stuff. 

And, as a related point, it  _ is _ entirely possible to do that with characters who are genuinely above average - to tell the story of the person we wish to be, and still have it be believable. Even spectacular people have doubts and quirks and off days, things that make them laugh or cry or want to throw up, things they’ve noticed or care about or worry over. Things that have nothing to  _ do _ with the spectacular stuff - things that are neither especially heroic, nor in any way a bad thing. Like having a stamp collection, or a fondness for puppies… 

He still could have had qualities that  _ weren’t _ especially heroic, but aren’t nearly enough to pull a person down from that high league. Like being a terrible dancer, or bad at remembering birthdays, or being scared of the Pink Elephant scene in Dumbo 

(And, to be entirely fair, I feel like the attempts to write Steve as flirting badly were actually an attempt at this… which never quite landed. And the  _ reason _ they never quite landed was that the writers were never prepared to fully commit to the genuine social awkwardness, self doubt, lack of awareness, ego or  _ whatever _ that would necessarily have underpinned it…) 

And, of course, it’s entirely possible that Steve could be spectacular whilst still having a real, genuine  _ flaw. _ That he could’ve started out as too self confident, or a bit impulsive, or too quick to divide a situation into right and wrong - you could’ve given him just  _ one _ of these challenges, and he still would’ve been the greatest man to have ever lived. He’d still be the guy to fight the good fight, and sacrifice himself, and endeavour always to do his best - however hard the situation - if you’d also allowed him just a  _ little _ bit of an ego, or a  _ smidge _ of self doubt, or a  _ slight _ tendency towards anger. And, at the same time, allowed this incredible, unbelievable, impossible person to have a journey to go on,  _ a _ link to the average cinema goer…

(And, again, I think we  _ do _ see shade of this in Steve’s character - but it’s  _ all _ Chris Evans doing. Any hint that Steve has a bit of a temper during that wood cutting scene is  _ all _ in the way Evans acts it, rather than the worthy speech he’s given to read. Any suggestion that he’s conflicted and scared about Project Insight is only there in Steve’s face - not the direction,  _ look Nick right in the eye and tell him, this isn’t freedom, this is fear. _ We know more about Steve’s relationship with Bucky from the  _ way _ Steve says his name in CATWS than we do from any of the dialogue they were given. I accept all of these things are there, and that we know them about the character - they just don’t count as points in an argument about why the writers fucked up. Because none of that was their doing.)

And, of course, there was even the option of saying that Steve  _ was _ perfect to begin with - but that his challenge was staying that way. That his arc was about following Erskine's final piece of advice, and  _ staying _ who he was in spite of all these obstacles… 

Alas, it seems that all too quickly, the writers instead simply started to think of ‘being good’ as Steve’s entire character. 

Instead of thinking how  _ a person _ would think and feel and act in any given situation, they slipped into asking what  _ Steve _ would do. ‘Steve’ being shorthand for hero, the embodiment of the Captain America ideal - 

Like ‘doing the right thing’ is who Steve  _ is _ .

And. Well. There are  _ several _ problems with this way of thinking. 

1\. ‘Being Good’ is not who anyone  _ is _ .

Doing what is right, or being a good person, are  _ not _ personality traits. These are not  _ qualities  _ that some people are born with or absorb through nurturing, a way of thinking that comes naturally to some people. 

‘Doing what is right’ is  _ actually _ a hundred individual choices a person makes every day. 

‘Being a good person’ actually requires a whole host of genuine personal qualities - like bravery, patience, humility, kindness, empathy, endurance or reasonableness, for example - that you continue to demonstrate, time and time again. 

These choices are not clearer or easier to some people.

These sacrifices and acts of courage do not come more naturally to some than others. 

No one is  _ born _ patient, or kind, or brave, or understanding, no one acquires these as a state of being. Even people whose personalities and environments were better suited to developing and demonstrating these qualities are still putting a consistent personal effort in, if you’d  _ describe _ them as such. 

But, even if you  _ would _ describe them by these terms - that still doesn’t mean they’re  _ incapable _ of acting otherwise. 

Even the most patient person you know has lost their temper at least once. The bravest person you know is scared of something. Even the most naturally kind hearted person in the world can probably look back on at least  _ one _ time that they hurt someone. That doesn’t mean they lose the label. That doesn’t mean all those other choices they made, all the other times they tried, don’t count. 

The most patient person on earth still has triggers. The most patient person in the history of the world will still have known frustration, and the feeling of injustice, and perhaps the perfect storm of PMS and a delayed train on the same day the pipes burst - even if they  _ still _ manage to keep their temper, it will have been a choice, a process, an active enactment of a personal quality rather than the passive existence of one. The fact that you continue to describe them as patient means that, more often than not, they make the effort and take the decision to  _ overcome _ all those things. That will still be true of that person, the one time that they  _ don’t. _

The fact that Steve takes three whole movies to really fuck up, where everyone else is literally introduced with one, is not just  _ who he is _ . 

His continued,  _ unwavering _ readiness to do whatever it takes to help others is not ‘his personality’.

And this is why there is so little spotlight and fanfare on Steve’s heroic sacrifices - because the writers, and therefore the audience, take them for granted. 

We don’t stop to analyse how many amazing qualities would be necessary, how many horrible decisions would go into, the things we see Steve do on screen. 

It’s the reason we’re so quick to leap on the first real mistake Steve ever makes, without comparing it to the catalogue of mistakes we’ve seen from other people, or putting it in the context of how many mistakes it cost him so much  _ not  _ to make - because Steve doesn’t get the credit for his previous behaviour,  _ that’s just Steve _ . As a matter of fact, we assume a  _ higher  _ standard of him, and then judge him  _ more _ harshly for fucking up  _ less  _ than others would have. We subconsciously assume that this perfect standard, stop noticing it, take it for granted - and are then outraged when Steve falls even remotely short of it, regardless of whether that’s still quite a way ahead of most people…

_ That’s just who Steve is,  _ becomes  _ That’s who Steve is supposed to be, _ so quickly...

2\. There aren’t many choices or qualities that  _ are _ noncontroversially ‘good’.

There are very few qualities that are universally accepted to be  _ good person qualities _ . One person's confidence is another person's hubris, or arrogance. One person’s strong will is another person's stubbornness. One person’s empathetic carer is another person’s soft touch. 

There are very few firm opinions that a person could hold which wouldn’t actually  _ offend _ a reasonable portion of the population. If you come out too strongly in favour of personal freedom, might disillusion the more liberal viewers. If you want to come out  _ strongly _ as a feminst, you have to be a bit specific about which type of feminist you mean - and that’s going to mean you’re #NotMyCaptainAmerica to  _ someone. _ If you want to ensure that  _ everyone _ sees you as a bastion of sexual and social morality, then really, you can’t have any sort of sex life - express any real sexuality - at all. But, equally, you can’t specify what your issue with it is…

And, because the writers seem to have decided that ‘being good’ is who Steve _ is _ \- and because they never seemed to put enough thought into the qualities and personal decisions that would actually have formed the basis of that, and therefore what version of ‘goodness’ it might reasonable have developed into - they left themselves with very little they  _ could _ have him express, without ‘compromising his character’ to someone. 

This is why Steve can only give on-brand statements during personal conversations - because if he strayed into giving advice, or admitting he shared the anxiety, or reacting on an emotional level, then maybe Steve would be perceived as doing the ‘wrong thing’ by someone.

It’s the reason that the Accords are so vague and changeable, even though they’re supposed to form the basis of Steve’s motivation and the entire plot. Because, if they develop Steve’s objection into more than a general commitment to ‘being able to help people’ and ‘fighting for the greater good’ - if,  _ heaven forbid _ , they were to consider that personal, human motivations might realistically form part of his decision making process - then maybe, to someone, Steve wouldn’t be upholding an impeccable moral judgement. 

... Because at no point does anyone seem to have considered that maybe, y’know, that might’ve been okay. 

That it wouldn’t  _ actually _ have damaged Steve’s characterisation, for him to be less than perfect - at least, not if you’d bothered to give him more characterisation than that in the first place. 

3\. Pain, and trauma, and struggling,  _ are _ often messy. 

The fact is, we as the audience think we know what suffering looks like. We think back to the reactions  _ we’ve _ demonstrated, what we’ve seen from people we love, what we’ve seen in every other movie - and, indeed, from every other character in this one. 

And, when people are  _ really _ in pain - in our experience - they don’t generally tend to stoically look to the middle distance, and then gently reassure Wanda of the value of doing what’s right. 

When people we know are in pain, they make asses of themselves. They lose their temper at the people they love, over the stupidest of things. They make impulsive purchases, drink too much, get into fights. They ugly cry, with snot and hiccuping. They have panic attacks, they say things they don’t mean, they withdraw. They stay awake for three days straight, they forget to eat, they go on a twenty minute rant at the UPS guy- 

_ Something _ . 

And maybe we  _ wouldn’t _ expect this reaction, if the world were populated by Steve Rogereses. If  _ all _ the movies were about people like him. Maybe then, we would  _ expect _ pain to look like a WW2 recruitment poster. 

But, as it is. 

We tend to think of Tony, having an anxiety attack, or Thor, overweight and hairy and crying to his mother, or Dr Strange, wide eyed and feral and staring in agony at his shattered hands, and we think,  _ oh, poor them, look what they’re going through- _

Meanwhile Steve is calmly comforting others - he’s fine.

We think back to  _ ourselves _ at our lowest - which, in real life, will have been a health crisis or a job loss or, at worst, the death of a loved one. And we think of ourselves, after two vodkas too many, weeping into our best friend’s shoulder because  _ I can’t believe we lost the house _ … and Steve’s reaction seems to be about 1/20th of the worst crisis any of us have ever endured. 

So, I guess  _ for Steve _ , losing everyone you’ve ever loved is about 5% as painful as when Lauren broke up with me.

Well, probably is, to someone with as much natural, innate  _ goodness _ as Steve....

And, I know, not everyone is the ugly crying type - in general. 

I know that there are people who only lose their temper very,  _ very _ rarely.

I know there are people who are more inclined to internalise their pain, than lash out-

But, as previously discussed, there is no one on earth - especially having been through what Steve’s been through - that couldn’t have believably have had just  _ one _ of those imperfect reactions, just one time. 

The most internalised of pain will often find an outlet  _ somewhere _ . 

And, if we’re honest, a lot of expressions of pain  _ could _ be described as needy, or even selfish. I guess, when we break down and cry on our mum,  _ at that moment _ , our primary concern is not making mum feel comfortable at all costs - as I suppose it would be, if we were as innately  _ good _ as Steve-

But, in real life, it's actually okay, healthy even, for you to have needs, to occasionally  _ take _ from loved ones you’re in a balanced relationship with, to  _ let _ someone put your needs ahead of theirs in a fair and reasonable way, for a time. To need help and accept help. To fail in front of people and expect them to understand - to  _ let _ them forgive you, and to forgive yourself.

But  _ Captain America,  _ brave and strong and good, can’t do that. Not if you’re going to try and make him the literal embodiment of that ideal, have him genuinely be what all the wide eyed six year olds think he is. I’ll pass no comment on whether any specific writers views might need updating, but I will say that in general they seem to think it’d be a weakness on Steve’s part to even have him engage in an honest conversation. Captain America can’t even go to therapy - and  _ no _ , I’m not counting a scene where you let him  _ run _ a therapy group, especially as he didn’t even get to be honest in it. Even then he’s putting his honest experiences and opinions behind a mask, and saying what he thinks is the  _ right thing _ in order to help others - he’s just like that, is our Steve. 

So heroic that he’ll even sacrifice his say in an emotional conversation, for the sake of others… even though, there wouldn’t actually be anything  _ unheroic _ about not doing that. 

They seem so afraid of showing any sort of weakness in Steve that they even avoid showing behaviours that wouldn’t have been.

_ Which _ , as an aside, kind of pisses me off, because I think it subconsciously reinforces the idea that there is something strong and heroic about foregoing support, or that it nudges you a little further from the ideal if you ask for it. Actually, Steve might’ve been a great character through which to  _ normalise _ struggling with things, and seeking help for it - a story about how that is what  _ makes _ truly great people better, rather than being something that would’ve detracted from it-

I digress.

The point is, the writer's strict adherence to a simplistic characterisation as  _ good _ robbed him of any chance to express his pain, in any way on screen -

But, you know what, if you can’t bear to write your character as anything other than bravely shouldering the burden alone,  _ at the very least draw attention to it! _

At the very least, find a way to make note of the fact that -  _ this man has never given in and expressed his pain, even once. _

(... At the very,  _ very _ least - don’t cut the Steve scenes from Avengers 1. Seriously, you’d already filmed them. Why would you  _ do _ that?)

And, again, I thank God that Chris Evans seemed to understand that all of this was going on, and put such effort into expressing it through the quiet, ‘dignified’ moments of grief he was permitted. 

But, alas, it seems the writers didn’t meet him halfway. They were simply too afraid of denting Steve’s perfect, ‘Captain America’ exterior to risk giving him some actual space to express his trauma. 

And therefore convinced the audience that he wasn’t really in any - at least, nowhere near as much as all the characters we saw openly struggling.

4\. It isn’t compatible with the way the other characters are written. 

Maybe all of this would have been fine, if every character had been crafted as rigidly and as simply as Steve was. If everyone had an avatar that literally every one of their choices had to relate back to, and they all had their entire stories framed along those lines. If it was Steve, who will always do the right thing, and Thor, who will always do the stupid thing, and Tony who will always do the selfish thing, and Nat, who will always do the cold hearted thing, and Clint, who has a family. Okay, I’m pretty sure that’s a cartoon aimed at six year olds, but hey-

The characters in kids cartoons are at least consistent with each other.

And if this were Marvel Time on Nick Toons, and the Accords debate had been simplified down to a barely shrouded PSA on compromise and sharing and the importance of always doing what is right, at least the characters would all have been talking on the same level. Steve would have been spokesperson for one side of the argument, in word, deed and characterisation, and Tony would’ve simply been the opposite. If every character simply represented an ideology, then we as an audience could at least fairly pick between them, or build an answer out of all of them. 

Steve would’ve said,  _ when I see a situation pointed south, I can’t ignore it. I sometimes wish I could - by which I mean, I understand sometimes the outcome will be worse, if I follow my ideals. But I believe you have to do what’s right. _

And Tony would’ve said,  _ well, when  _ _ I _ _ see a situation pointed south, I think whether it would be better to ignore it. If the outcome will be worse for others, it would be selfish to follow your ideals. _

And Steve would’ve said,  _ well, I think it’s wrong to imprison Wanda, and when something is wrong it is wrong. The ends cannot justify the means. _

And Tony would’ve said,  _ ah, well I think it would be wrong to let Wanda go, because - even though I agree, imprisonment without trial is a bad thing, more people will be hurt if I  _ _ don’t. _ _ Sometimes the ends do justify the means  _

Pause video -  _ now children, what do  _ _ you _ _ think about utilitarianism? _

_ Do you agree with Steve, that you must follow your conscience no matter what the consequences? _

_ Or do you agree with Tony, that an action is only as moral as it’s outcome? _

Instead of which,  _ Tony _ continues to be presented as a complex and occasionally contradictory human character, with well-intentioned reasons for choosing a different path, and multiple personal pressures that impact his overall attitude, and a well sign posted potential to shift and grow as a result of many complex factors-

And Steve is still the spokesperson for one side of the argument. 

In this world, Tony brings along a handy little prop, to illustrate one of the already-well developed personal perspectives he has on this. He gets to do a little monologue about where he is in life - tells us about the break up with Pepper, summarises his character development so far, literally articulates the personal challenge this represents for him. He literally says out loud that his feelings about Steve are complicated and occasionally combative, but still important to him, and a big part of his motivation here. The argument he puts forward is really more an appeal to empathy, an explanation of why this matters to him, what he’s scared of. We can  _ see _ his perhaps short-sighted eagerness to leap on any sign of hope that Steve will agree, we  _ understand _ the unhelpful way he brushes Steve’s concerns aside in a bid to rush this through - that’s never presented as an expression of his political argument, or his overall character. Neither is the flash of panic in his eyes when he realises he’s fucked up by mentioning Wanda, the way he tries to both back track from it and defend it at the same time - the fact that he loses his temper on his own behalf, and basically outright says,  _ I just really want this political problem to go away so we can be friends again, and I’m angry at you for not letting me.  _ “I’m doing what’s got to be done, to stop something worse” is delivered in such a way that its clearly  _ meant _ to be an insight into his personal motivation and state of mind, rather than his personal ideology-

And  _ Steve  _ says, “If I see a situation headed south…”

It’s like they’re having two entirely different conversations, like they’re being directed in two completely different ways in the same damn scene. 

Even with poor Chris Evans,  _ acting his bollocks off _ to try and show us that Steve is thinking all the same things-

What he actually gets to  _ say _ is that he’s not trying to make the situation difficult - all we get to hear him  _ explain  _ of his intentions is that they’re good.

He gets to say that he isn’t opposed to compromise - but that he can’t accept what’s being done to Wanda, whatever the pragmatic arguments-

Which he doesn’t get to engage with, because the writers aren’t brave enough to give him an opinion that specific. 

And he doesn’t get to say specifically  _ why _ Wanda’s arrest is a bridge too far, or how it makes him feel, or what it reminds him of - just an unobjectionable assertion that “you can’t harm a kid, no matter what”

He gets to tell Tony “Just when I think you see things the right way-” But, of course, he cuts himself short before he can say what he thinks the right way is. 

He’d have had to cut himself short there anyway, even if he hadn’t been dangerously close to getting an opinion - because he can’t lose his temper really, either. He’s  _ just _ about allowed a little outburst in Wanda’s defence… But he’d have fallen short of perfect, if he’d had his own equivalent of the wide-eyed and obviously overwhelmed “GIVE ME A BREAK! I'm doing what has to be done... to stave off something worse.” 

Which is, again, an insight into Tony’s motivations as a person, rather than him giving his side of the argument-

Which makes it a strange answer to Steve making an overarching political point-

But then, making an overarching political point seemed a strange response to Tony’s emotional plea -

Because they are essentially having two entirely different conversations, and the writers are asking us to consider them in two entirely different ways.

Pause video -  _ now everybody, whose side are you on? _

_ Do you agree with Steve, that you must follow your conscience, even when it isn’t in your own personal interests - sometimes even in contradiction to the law?  _

_ Or do you empathise with Tony, and somehow share his desperation to resolve this situation, and understand his reading of the complex realities that he’s trying to navigate? _

...This question does not compute. It makes no sense.

These things are not mutually exclusive, nor are they simple yes/no answers, and neither of them sum up the totality of the situation. 

We’re asked to compare apples to oranges, asked to pick Steve because of overarching ideological concepts that we broadly agree with, or Tony, because we understand his point of view. 

It's like being asked who you side with in Gone With The Wind - Scarlett O'Hara or Abraham Lincoln 

(If you’d like an even neater illustration of this very distinction, consider that Tony  _ does _ eventually get to have his highly charged  _ No trust - Liar! _ rant,  _ and _ his balanced, reflected upon apology, complete with personal characterisation, on this very topic. He has to wait until the next film that isn’t specifically his - that gives his perspective on this time to unfold in a developed and reasonable way, you see - but by the end, he does get to demonstrate every stage of his human response to this conflict, from denial to bargaining to rage to acceptance. Steve just stands there heroically, in both scenes. He doesn’t even get to have an emotional outburst about his fight with Tony in the emotionally charged scene with Tony about that very topic.)

And this tonal discrepancy the source of so much of the frustration between the characters - or, really, between the fans who identify them.... 

Or, maybe it’s just me. 

But, fellow members of the ‘four years later and still angry’ club,  _ whichever  _ ‘side’ you’re on - do you ever feel like you spend more time arguing about what you’re actually arguing about, than getting to make the argument itself? Like so many of your arguments seem to begin:  _ But that’s not even the point! _ Like you spend more time debating what the events of the film actually were, and what the characters knew, and why they were really doing things, than you get to talk about what it is that actually happened? 

Do you ever feel as though Team Steve, and Team Tony, are not actually two sides of the same fight, as so much marketing would have you believe?

Actually, they’re two positions to be taken in two entirely separate, entirely unrelated fights - and two positions among potentially many.

And in two separate categories, to be analysed by entirely separate rules. 

And, by trying to pit these two entirely separate concepts against each other - by trying to suggest that they were opposing sides of a single debate, it was a simple, binary choice - the studio  _ didn’t _ rip the fandom into two neatly defined warring factions.

Actually, it split the fandom into  _ four _ nebulous and vaguely interconnected groups - all of whom have been arguing for the last four years-

But not with each other.

Actually each of these four groups have spent all these time simply trying to make points of their own - the answer to which is normally not a counterpoint, but an assertion that  _ that _ isn’t even the point at all. 

**Team 1 - I pledge allegiance to Captain America, and the goodness he stands for.**

A small but vocal group of people, who are possibly emboldened because they seem to be included in the writing team- 

The people who  _ actually _ believe that Steve can’t be flawed. 

The people so blinded by who Steve  _ is _ that they refuse to acknowledge or honestly examine things he  _ did _ . 

People so convinced of the purity and rightness of Steve’s intentions… without any acknowledgement that not meaning any harm isn’t the end of the story, or that even uncompromisingly well intentioned people can end up in complicated situations in the real world.

The people who have  _ bought _ this idea that ‘being good’ is a personality type, and an indelible one at that. People who will claim to  _ know _ what Steve was thinking and what he would have done in alternative circumstances, and offer as proof only that it’s ‘who Steve is’. Who will engage in a circular argument whenever it’s suggested that Steve isn’t perfect, by countering that those actions weren’t wrong,  _ because  _ Steve is good. 

The people who bought the idea that Steve was the physical embodiment of a vague political concept - that to side with him was to believe that you have to do what’s right, regardless of your own personal interests. People that believe that to question Steve is to go against that unquestionable ideal. That to even  _ consider  _ that Steve might’ve made other mistakes, or be in the wrong on individual points, or have even… God No, not  _ Steve _ … have had some well controlled, entirely understandable, maybe subconscious personal interests of his own - that would’ve been a stand  _ against _ that political concept.  _ Against _ Steve as a concept. Thus reducing Steve to a concept. 

The people who  _ do _ see Steve as the poster child for an ideal, the same way as the writers do - the people who have crafted that ideal to be their exact version of ‘good’, in the spaces that the writers left for it. 

The people who  _ also _ assume absence of evidence to be evidence of absence - the people who think they  _ know  _ that Steve doesn’t have a dark side, because the writers haven’t been brave enough to show it. Who take an absence of proof that Steve disagrees with them as evidence that Steve would do exactly what their version of the hero would do. 

People who  _ also _ hold Steve to a different standard to everyone else - failing to condemn him for actions that others are simply  _ expected _ to apologise for, disregarding all reasonable evidence of human failings and forcibly  _ making _ them into a stand for good.

People who drag every individual question about something unreasonable Steve might’ve said, or something irresponsible Steve might have done, or any decision that might have been made for the wrong reasons, back to the overall concept of the Accords. Or to the general quality of his character. 

...People who are, in their own way, contributing to the unfair standard Steve is held to, the lack of credit and understanding he receives. 

The people who declare,  _ no, Steve  _ _ wasn’t _ _ being scared and defensive when they had that argument, he’s better than that, _ deny Steve the credit for all the times he’s put the  _ effort _ into being better than that. It makes its sound as though he’s someone who just doesn’t  _ get _ doubt or jealousy or frustration, rather than someone who constantly tries to overcome them. It feeds into this narrative that Steve  _ would _ have compromised his character, or undone all the good work he’s ever done with one mistake, when you  _ so _ passionately defend his actions on the grounds that his very character doesn’t allow mistakes. 

The people who declare that,  _ no, Steve would’ve done that for Bucky regardless of whether he knew him - he does the right thing for everyone,  _ erase all of the personal choices and qualities that went into the other individual acts of heroism he’s shown. This refusal to consider Steve as a human being in this situation, and therefore the  _ possibility _ that he might act differently in one circumstance to another, or even feel drawn to - erases all the thought and judgement and self discipline that go into his actions, and essentially reduces them down to natural impulses. 

Plus, this kind of assertion about how Steve would’ve acted sometimes even goes against in canon evidence, suggesting there are people so determined to bend Steve to fit their impression of him, that they can even subconsciously retcon him. 

The people who seem to think that Tony’s  _ entire _ problem is his hurt feelings, and he needs to get over it - which ignores both the fact that hurting someone's feelings is something you need to acknowledge or apologise over, and the fact that Steve did make actual mistakes. The choices he made, the phrases he used, the things he  _ failed _ to think about or do - there are people who seem to literally not see any of it, to have boiled it down to ‘and now Tony’s mad’

...And, okay, my Team Tony roots might be showing through just a little at this point-

But it  _ is _ also  _ deeply _ frustrating from a Tony fan’s perspective. 

It’s that same irritation you get, trying to explain an individual act of thoughtlessness to someone, only to have them tell you what a thoughtful guy they’ve always been. 

It’s that thing where you’re so hurt by an act of thoughtlessness, and they keep telling you that they didn’t mean it, and you’re having to explain that _that’s literally what thoughtlessness means!_ _Stop arguing that you’re innocent of an entirely different mistake when I’m trying to tell you I’ve been hurt by this one. You still have to apologise for things you did by accident - especially if you_ _should_ _have put more thought into preventing it from happening._

It’s that creeping sense of manipulated injustice you get when you literally outline all the times someone should have considered you, all the choices that were objectively wrong, how all of this looked to you and why you were hurt by it - only for them to sigh, like they’re being so mature in accepting that,  _ you just don’t understand. _

It’s the fury of listening to someone assert that Steve simply doesn’t do things that are thoughtless or reckless - and then, when you point to actions that might reasonably be considered thoughtless or reckless, they counter that Steve was  _ obviously _ thinking all the right things at that moment - because it’s Steve.

You get to the point where you want to punch yourself in the teeth-

And the crazy thing is - all of this is  _ so _ much more annoying than the mistakes Steve made in the first place.

Be honest, Tony fans - Steve saying “you did that when you signed” riles you up far more than the fact Steve kept that secret from him. Steve putting “I know you were doing what you thought was right, which is all any of us can do” in that letter boiled your blood far more than his decision to help Bucky in the first place.

With a different attitude (or, as I said above, with a different  _ perceived _ attitude - with more effort on behalf of the writers to give him something other than this perceived attitude...) Steve’s mistakes don’t piss us off nearly as much.

When we think that Steve might’ve been making a simple, panicked error, like the ones we imperfect mortals make every day, we actually like him  _ more _ than we think of him doing this as a balanced act of leadership. We give him more credit for the mistakes he didn’t make, and think of him as a  _ better _ person, when we think of him as someone who could still be flawed.

And, okay, this is the Stony shipper in me, but honestly, I just want Steve to say he’s sorry for the mistakes he’s made (not even to take responsibility for everything - just to acknowledge the things he  _ did _ fuck up) so that I can have Tony throw his arms around him and say it’s okay.

I  _ want _ Tony to be able to be as forgiving to Steve as people have always been to him… I just need Steve to be capable of the same remorse as Tony has been, first. 

Not a grovelling apology - I never expected or wanted Tony to do that.

Not an outright acceptance that he was wrong about literally everything - I never expected Tony to do that either.

Not even an immediate and perfect redemption - I still love Tony, in spite of the fact that it’s taken him some time to get where he ended up. 

Just as much human culpability as Tony gets to show routinely. An awareness of the pain he’s caused and an acknowledgement that it is important - a genuine insight into his reasons, rather than a press-release sounding justification of his actions. 

Again, it turns out that I’m lucky that Tony got all that from the writers - it turns out that not everyone gets the same treatment. 

And, I now realise, Steve was always disadvantaged, when it came to showing these things I needed to see.

I now realise that some of it  _ was _ there, it was simply that we had to look harder for it with Steve. 

But yeah, it is still really fucking annoying.

But, then again...

**Team 2 - I denounce Captain America and all his followers, and declare his goodness to be a lie.**

...Blushes furiously.

I mean, I really hope this was never me. But, I don’t know, maybe at individual moments back in 2016…

Look, I was just  _ really _ angry, okay.

And, that is a vital part of it when it comes to team 2 - 

The people who believe that Steve’s mistakes prove that he  _ isn’t _ good. 

The people who point to the errors that Steve makes in CACW as an obvious reason to cancel him completely.

The people who erase the strength and kindness and goodness he showed in the past, genuinely suggesting that he was obviously never the good guy, if he could be anything less than the perfect good guy now-

Never recognising that this is not the standard we use for anyone else. 

The people who judge Steve by how far short of perfect he fell, rather than how much more than the bare minimum he did, or how he compares to the performance of others. 

The people who don’t take into consideration the mitigating factors for Steve, where they would for other people. People who subconsciously assume that either these things don’t affect Steve, or that he’s  _ supposed _ to be able to rise above it - that he’s fallen short of a duty, if he fails to do so. People who  _ also _ fail to credit Steve with all the times he got it right before hand, or to consider how phenomenally difficult that would’ve been. 

People who assume that Steve has no pain to deal with,  _ because  _ of the superhuman effort he makes to ensure that it doesn’t affect others. Assuming him deserving of a  _ greater _ punishment than people who have made far less effort to keep their internal pain from exploding into external consequences -  _ because _ the explosive consequences convince us that other characters are in more pain, and therefore having to make more effort, and deserving of more consideration, than someone like Steve. 

People who blame Steve for every negative consequence that happened as a result of his choice - however unfortunate or unlikely, regardless of anything else that went into it, even when there was someone more knowingly and directly responsible for the chain of events. Never considering that blame is not a binary concept, that Steve doesn’t assume all responsibility the moment you prove he’s not entirely guiltless. Never acknowledging that Steve’s actions might have been perfectly reasonable, objectively responsible, given what he knew at the time - as opposed to what the writers choices made of them afterwards. Never considering the difference between Steve’s input and the outcome they led to - judging Steve for what  _ happened _ , rather than what he did. Always being judged according to hindsight, with no consideration for how confusing and frightening it must be to make that choice  _ at the time _ . When  _ you _ don’t know if the writers have got a sneaky little plot twist up their sleeve, you can only go on the information you have - trying to guess whether this ends with super soldiers taking over the world, because you did tell Tony, or the Avengers being torn in half, because you didn’t. Knowing you’ll be responsible for the overall outcome either way.

And the people who judge what Steve did according to how this movie made them  _ feel _ .

...yeah, maybe this was a little bit me, at one point.

The people who walked out of the cinema so heartbreaking, tear-inducingly furious for Tony. So incensed by the casual way his betrayal had been dismissed, even  _ justified,  _ by the entire marketing campaign of this move. So incredulous that the film ended without any real closure, before Steve could actually  _ say _ a single thing about what happened - wanting so much to shout at  _ someone _ about all the points that never came up. 

Yeah, that was definitely me. 

Furious that everything was being forced into this argument about the Accords, which had nothing to do with the source of my anger. Furious at Clint, for his ‘here comes the futurist’ speech, at Scott for his ‘never trust a Stark’ jab, at Nat for turning on Tony and  _ then _ snapping at him over his ego - for the way the directors so easily implied that this was a perfectly reasonable position to take. 

...Taking far too long to realise that none of these people are Steve.

...To realise that I  _ couldn’t _ reasonably blame Steve for Nat having a change of heart, or something Clint said when Steve wasn’t even  _ there _ , or the strapline on the movie poster. 

...To realise that  _ all _ of these characters might’ve had individual motivations and implications and justifications for their treatment of Tony, and that each of them had their own reasons for being there and for acting as they did. That any one of them might’ve been acting out or snapping or taking it upon themselves, when they did the thing I objected to - and then unthinkingly rolled into my criticism of Steve.

I admit, I didn’t do that with Team Tony.

But then, in my defence - the writers didn’t do that with Team Tony.

Rhodey has  _ never _ simply done what Tony did, but slower. He’s always been quick enough to point out when Tony is doing the wrong thing, or to call Tony out when he’s behaving like an ass - when really necessary, he’ll fight Tony head on, over-ride him and fly Tony’s suit to the US military himself. 

I guess that’s because Tony was written as a regular human character to start with, so the writers had to find an ongoing, believable reason for someone to support him - and were able to craft a believable story between them, which didn’t rely on either’s undying loyalty. 

Rhodey isn’t going to be Team Tony  _ just _ because it’s Tony, however much he loves him and has his back - it wouldn’t be believable for someone to pledge  _ unquestioning _ support to someone so openly presented as complicated and flawed.

That’s why Nat has to be given her own, personally crafted reasons to side with him initially. It’s why Vision has to be given his own, in character philosophy for it. It’s why T’Challa has to have entirely separate reasons for turning up - he is nominally ‘Team Tony’, but we can hardly consider Tony responsible for him, if Tony didn’t even know he was going to be there.

Tony doesn’t talk any of these people into siding with  _ him _ , out of some undying loyalty to him as a person - how could he, when he’s been so regularly presented as imperfect?

These people side with Tony on this occasion because they believe in that side of the argument for themselves - and are always presented as independent actors who can change their mind. As Nat does, almost immediately. As neither Rhodey or Vision express total, unquestioning loyalty to Tony’s side of the argument by the time of Infinity War.

As such, I don’t consider Tony to be a figure head for every member of his team. I don’t hold Tony responsible for anything they do. I wouldn’t feel like it reflected on them in any way, if Tony were to apologise for or defend his actions in CACW. 

But of course, it wasn’t quite the same for Steve.

In this movie, Team Steve suffers the overspill of The Steve Problem. Actually, it would have been entirely possible for the writers to take a moment to better explore Clint, Wanda, Scott or Sam’s personal motivations for siding with Steve on this one. To have  _ shown _ them weighing up the risks of all the options, and making a conclusion based on their own priorities. To have better acknowledged the layered and distinct reasons they each might have had for their choice, both emotional and rational - from exploring Clint’s political objections to the Accords and his guilt over Pietro, to Wanda’s repressed resentment of Tony Stark or her grief over losing her brother, to Scotts hero worship - or something else maybe, you decide. 

Instead of which, Steve’s entire team gets taken for granted in the movie, in the same way he himself does - the writers don’t bother to explain why each member sides with him, because they assume you already know. 

The only motivation that Clint actually expressed for getting involved in the first place, and potentially tearing his family apart, is that “Cap needs our help”.

Scott apparently risks the family that  _ he _ was so dedicated to but one movie ago, for no other reason than  _ it’s Steve _ . 

Wanda’s personal reservations about the consequences of getting involved and the moral pitfalls of breaking out of jail are entirely and instantly over-ridden by “You wanna make amends, you get off your ass” - at which point she accepts that siding with Steve would be an act so moral that it would act as her redemption. 

Nat needed a believable and reasonably developed set of reasons to side with Tony in the first place, but - in spite of the fact that none of that changes, and even though she knows no more than she did about what Steve is really up to - she changes her mind about that  _ because it’s Steve _ . 

Sam continues to ‘have Steve’s back’ assumed as a character trait.

...I’m never entirely sure whether Bucky knows exactly what is going on. 

Where the members of Team Tony make their own choices about how to act in this situation, Team Steve side with Steve  _ because  _ it’s Steve. Because they trust Steve’s judgement, and therefore don’t need to use their own. Because they have  _ faith _ in Steve-

Again, all very unfair to Steve.

Honestly, it sounds lovely to have a whole team of people ready to blindly support you. Like it would be better to be Steve, and have all those people who believed you were right no matter what, than to be Tony, and have most people seem suspicious of you, and even your friends' support be conditional on your behaviour being reasonable. 

...Me, I’d much rather be Tony.

To me, this all just sounds like an additional burden for Steve to carry. Having to speak for other people as well as yourself. Knowing that any mistake will reflect on the people who trusted you to be perfect - whether you ever promised them that or not. Knowing that you can’t rethink your opinion, without betraying the people who believed in your original view - whether or not they even asked what was. 

And being held  _ responsible _ for the actions of completely separate people - having them speak for  _ you _ every bit as much - because they’ve declared that they’re acting in your name.

Sod that. 

I’d much rather have a friend like Rhodey, who’d say “I think I’ve paid for  _ my  _ choice” than an ally like Scott, who struggled to explain his own ‘it was a...national security...thing - It was  _ Captain America _ , okay?’ motivation, when Hope asked what the hell he was thinking. 

But, I’ll admit that I wasn’t as sympathetic about all this at the time. That, at the time, I unthinkingly accepted that Team Steve  _ were _ a homogenous group. That, because those characters seemed to act purely in  _ Steve’s _ name, they were all extensions of him. Somehow all equal representatives of the same ideal, like members of a corporate board - like any one of them could express the corporate view. 

And  _ that _ in turn led to what was a general feeling of anger. An  _ increasing _ outrage as I listed all the things Tony had been through, all the injustices he’d suffered… and eventually ending up feeling  _ very  _ hurt.

...Which I possibly confused with,  _ Steve has fucked up  _ _ very _ _ much. _

Because,  _ with hindsight _ … there is a difference between the size of a mistake, and the scale of the pain it caused you. 

That the hurt something causes might be based on many things, as well as what someone actually did. 

That, actually, judging someone's actions and intentions  _ entirely _ according to how you feel about them might be just a tad self indulgent.

Which is not to say that the hurt feelings are not part of the picture. I’m not saying the pain you caused is unimportant, or shouldn’t be acknowledged - especially when it  _ is  _ your own mistakes that led there.

...But, as discussed in so much detail earlier - the self same actions from Steve might’ve been far less  _ hurtful _ , had other events happened to have unfolded differently. 

Steve is not  _ more _ of a bastard for those actions than someone Tony cared less about or expected less of - at least, not to the extent I’d made of it. 

Steve is no worse a person now than he would’ve been, had Vision narrowly missed Rhodey - and no better a person than he would’ve been, had that shot killed Rhodey outright. Really, it’s only fair to judge a person by their own contribution, rather than what happened to happen as a result. 

And, yes, judging someone’s contribution should include  _ some  _ consideration of what they should have thought about, what you had a right to expect of them as a friend, how personally hurtful it was and whether they care. 

I am obviously not saying Steve isn’t responsible for any of it, or that he wasn’t responsible for upholding his end of a personal friendship, or that it wasn’t his responsibility to think whether someone  _ could  _ get hurt and how to avoid it. It was, and I still think Steve has apologies to make. 

Just that I also think a fair judgement of someone’s contribution should also include  _ some _ consideration of what they would’ve reasonably thought at the time, and what their intentions were, and whether you do understand the mitigating factors - which needn’t be excuses, or pardons, but simply things to be factored in. Same as we do with every other character.

I am simply saying that - well, people are sometimes unfair when they’re angry. That’s not a controversial statement. And maybe the anger  _ was _ justified… but even if it was, that doesn’t necessarily mean all the arguments and insults and actions that it led to were. 

There were  _ always _ some Team Tony posts where… I understood the pain, I really did… But the assessment of Steve that it led you to, not so much. 

I was never so angry at Steve that I stopped liking him altogether.

But, really, I  _ did _ take all of the rage I had at Steve,  _ and _ his entire team _ , and  _ that had been caused by the events of the movie,  _ and _ that was exacerbated by the marketing… and just kind of gave it Steve’s face. It was  _ all _ Team Steve - which I’d now been convinced was a cohesive political movement, a  _ side _ I could either be for or against.

And I was perhaps  _ more _ violently against it than I might have been, had I not been so very fucking wild.

All of which I accept must’ve been very annoying for Steve Stans.

Coming up against a wall of emotion every time you wanted to make a reasonable point.

Never being able to decry the actions of another team member, without betraying a loyal foot soldier who was only ever acting in Steve’s name… still not entirely sure why it's his place to answer for them anyway.

Always expecting everyone to leap in with  _ gotcha!  _ over every error Steve makes. 

Never being able to suggest Tony did  _ anything _ wrong, without being subjected to the full raft of  _ every _ mistake in the movie. Again.

Never being able to make a point  _ about  _ the Accords, without it being brought back to Steve’s personal mistakes. 

I mean,  _ I  _ don’t think they matter, I think the film would have been better without them - but, they  _ are _ in the movie. Other people are allowed to think they matter, and to have an opinion on them, and to want to discuss that. To want to pose the question ‘would the Accords have led to a slippery slope?’ without a thousand commenters asking ‘what, you think that makes it okay to lie to Tony??’ I appreciate, it is not only Tony Fans who must want to scream  _ that is not the argument we are having!  _ At times.

If that was me, I’m very sorry. 

_ Especially _ if you were in fact always in team 3...

  
  


**Team 3 - I accept Steve made mistakes - but I’m still Team Steve**

I have come to think that maybe, just maybe, team 3 are the group most screwed over by the whole CACW debacle. 

The people who  _ do _ know that Steve is a complex human character, with impossible struggles -  _ that’s what they’ve been saying! _

The people who saw Steve’s contributions and sacrifices even without the writer's help, and liked him for them. 

The people who  _ did _ judge him by the same standards as other characters, with reference to his individual story - and therefore, unsurprisingly, came out as Steve Fans.

People who always saw Steve as exactly what he was -  _ not _ a perfect solider, but a good man.

People who see Steve the same way I see Tony, I guess. Who like him for the same well complex reasons, in full awareness of any previous mistakes and personal flaws.

People who don’t deny that Steve has made mistakes, or that he still has challenges to overcome, or that some of his behaviour was less than perfect. People who don’t believe Steve was right about  _ everything _ -

And don’t know why he should have to be.

People who just want to be able to defend Steve in the same way people defend Tony. 

To be able to point out that Tony was wrong to try to murder Bucky, in the same way Tony fans argue that Thor shouldn’t have throttled him - without having to go back and defend everything Steve ever did, all over again.

To be able to point out where other people have been unkind or unfair to Steve - without being subjected to all the reasons that Steve  _ isn’t _ 100% kind… and so what?

To point out that you think Steve is right overall - without having  _ everything _ that  _ every _ member of his team said forced upon you. 

To wish Steve’s every good quality would be catalogued and considered in the same way as the less-than perfect parts.

To be  _ angry _ that Tony didn’t trust him at the airport, or to think Tony should’ve done more to  _ help _ Steve, or to want to explain Steve’s reasons - without being bluntly told that Steve doesn’t deserve any of that consideration.

To think that Steve is now owed an apology, seeing as he’s the only one to have offered one. That it's now Tony’s place to call the burner phone, since Steve took the step of sending this. 

To be  _ every _ bit as pissed off as the Tony fans, that the writers never let Steve give his side of the story.

Obviously, I still don’t think  _ all  _ of the above is true… But I accept that none of these are  _ unreasonable  _ arguments to make. I think Steve fans have as much right to make them, and in the same  _ way, _ as other fans - without being held to that same standard that Steve is. 

And I recognise that you really aren’t able to, a lot of the time. That you  _ do _ get a lot of shit, for merely wanting to point out the good points of a character you love. Someone who, flaws and all, still has a far lot less red in his ledger than… well, basically  _ everyone _ else’s fave. 

And I recognise, belatedly, that I have a lot in common with the people in group 3 - that I can relate. That I know what it’s like to really love a complicated and imperfect character for all the amazing qualities they otherwise have, to want people to see their journey through to the end and give them credit for all the good they do and put their failings into context-

That, actually, like all people who (now) identity with group 4, I’m  _ almost _ in group 3 myself. 

**Team 4 - I still believe in the goodness of Captain America - I just want him to accept that he made mistakes.**

I’d like to think I was  _ always _ in group 4, I really would… 

But, hey, I’m here now.

Among the people who  _ still _ believe that CACW was a movie about Steve’s mistakes. 

People who either agree with Tony about the Accords, or don’t even think it was about the Accords - people who want Steve fans to stop making it  _ all _ about the Accords, regardless. 

People who want Steve to stop hiding behind an impossible-to-argue ideology and engage with the messy realities of what happened.

People who want Steve to acknowledge the individual bad choices he made throughout this movie, and the real reasons behind them -  _ and the hurt they caused _ .

People who still want Steve to care, are still hurt that the writers never let him show that, who would  _ still _ have a fair few fucking things to say to him, given the chance-

And, for all of that, they still love  _ him  _ too.

People who have always seen that Steve is a complex and occasionally flawed character, (...with maybe  _ brief  _ rage induced lapses, on and off, in 2016) who know that Steve is, on balance,  _ still _ one of the greatest heroes in the world. 

People who recognise that this narrative wouldn’t even be in question, were it not for the questionable choices or writers and directors - if he was  _ treated _ the same way as other characters.

People who don’t even  _ mean _ it as a cancellation of the entire character, when they put forward an honest critique of his actions - and are fed up with people defending his overall character in response. 

People who are fed up with pointing out that ‘Steve did a bad thing’ only to be told that ‘Steve isn’t bad’ - with no acknowledgement that it isn’t the same question, and it isn’t even mutually exclusive. 

People who want others to accept that Steve  _ has _ faults, that he isn’t  _ incapable _ of selfishness or error, not because they want to catch Steve out or do him down - but simply because it’s  _ true _ . Because there is vindication in acknowledgement. Because this weird, we-were-never-at-war-with-Eurasia adherence to Steve’s official corporate identity becomes fucking kafkaesque - because it  _ is _ just infurating, to have people use their own assertions as proof of their argument. To try and counter the assertion that Steve’s actions weren’t reckless, because Steve isn’t a reckless person. 

All without thinking it would be the end of the world if Steve  _ had _ been a little bit reckless, once. Still loving the guy, even while we’re making that very argument. 

People who wanted to know more about  _ why _ Steve did all of this - so that they could understand. People who had genuine questions about Steve’s motivations, that they could never ask without it being taken as an assault on his characterisation. 

People who wanted Steve to apologise - not because they thought Steve deserved it, but because they thought Tony did. 

People who wanted to see Steve apologise so that they  _ could _ forgive him. Because they knew Steve deserved forgiveness. Because they wanted to see him move beyond this mistake in the same way other people get to - if only the writers could have him accept his mistakes in the same  _ way  _ that others do. 

People who are quite prepared to accept that Tony  _ did _ make mistakes - but aren’t prepared to accept that they justify what Steve did, or that they’re worse than what Steve did, or that we should be talking about them instead of what Steve did. 

People who might well be prepared to accept that Tony has some apologies of his own to make… but aren’t prepared to let the dispute become all about  _ that _ again. 

These people got screwed over by CACW too. 

_ These _ are the people still crafting the same civil war fix it fic over and over again, nearly half a decade later.

These are the people who  _ still _ stay awake at night, endlessly trying to organise this same argument in their heads-

And by that, of course, I mean  _ me _ . 

**Turns Out, Resentment is Corrosive and I Hate it**

I like to think, in one of the many timelines that Steve might’ve explored after Endgame, there was at least one where he got  _ his _ movie. Maybe not my version of his movie, but one where he got to be the centre of it. 

I imagine the scene, where Steve and Tony stand next to the car. Always next to a car.

Even after all the lies and the poor choices. Even if Tony still attacked Bucky, even if Rhodey has still been paralysed. Even after Steve’s made his less than perfect apology, and Tony has had his somewhat emotional ‘ _ no trust - liar!’ _ outburst. Maybe, somewhere, there is a moment after that. 

A moment where maybe Steve could say… “Look, Tony, I am  _ so _ sorry for keeping that secret from you. And for not trusting you, when all of this started - for just… being a hot mess, in general, really. I was just… so desperate to keep everything together. Every day for two years I thought, I should tell you, and it only got harder… and I should’ve done it anyway. I know that.”

...Maybe Tony might’ve said -  _ should _ have said, “I understand.”

“ _ I’ve been there. _ ”

Maybe  _ Tony  _ could’ve said “I know you were only ever trying to do what’s right. And, yeah, maybe you did go about it all the wrong way this time… I know what that’s like, too. And, honestly, I hate to think of how much worse that whole Ultron thing might’ve been, if they’d introduced an anti AI law at that exact moment… or it, y’know… Pepper had literally just died…”

Then Steve  _ could _ have said, “But that’s no excuse.”

You don’t have to explain your motivations or your mitigations during a true apology, when you’re talking to someone who’s making  _ any _ effort to understand them. You  _ can  _ get right on with saying you’re sorry, when you don’t have to begin by clarifying what you’re sorry for. You don’t have to include an explanation that you weren’t being spiteful, or that you were trying your best, when the person you’re talking to already assumes as much - when they’re not yelling at you for attitudes you never held, and crimes you never committed. 

Then Steve  _ can _ say, “The fact is, I didn’t tell you because it was going to be so hard - I didn’t do the right thing because it was going to be difficult, and… I regret that. And, really, I was just trying to control the situation, to stop people knowing things or doing things that would get in the way of my own… kind of emotional, plan… which isn’t fair. And I’m sorry.”

And of course this Tony is nodding along in an understanding fashion. He remembers not telling Rhodey and Pepper about his palladium poisoning, because it was hard. Not telling Pepper about the suits he was building, because it was easier to control what she knew than deal with the objections and inputs of his life partner. He remembers just wanting to get Ultron  _ done _ . 

You can be understanding like that, when someone meets you halfway.

You can accept that it was nothing more than a mistake, once someone has accepted it  _ was _ a mistake. 

You can move on when you know someone  _ is _ sorry - not when they’ve just said it. 

And you  _ can’t _ tell someone,  _ it’s okay, I know how hard it is to struggle with a secret,  _ if they haven’t actually told you that. When they haven’t told you anything. When you can’t be  _ sure  _ they won’t scoff and say  _ no, it’s not that I struggled with it - to be honest, I didn’t really think about that choice after I made it. I just thought it was for the best and went back to looking for Bucky. _ Our pride won’t let us make that apology, when some part of us is still worried we’re making it to some who simply thinks we bloody well should. 

And  _ now _ Tony can say “I’m sorry too.”

Now Tony can acknowledge that maybe he should’ve thought of some of that already. That he should have listened to Steve’s fears about the Accords, and thought about the reasons behind them, before he’d started campaigning zealously to change Steve’s mind at any cost. That he could’ve included Steve in more of  _ his _ decisions in the lead up to Bucharest, that maybe it’s a long term issue between both of them that Steve didn’t feel like Tony would have his back. That he should’ve stopped and listened to Steve at the airport, that he could’ve given him the benefit of the doubt. That he’s sorry he lashed out at Bucky. 

You can acknowledge your own mistakes, when someone isn’t using them as a shield to avoid acknowledging their own. 

When admitting your own, entirely separate failings won’t be the first apology anyone makes.

...You can only really see and acknowledge those things when you're not angry anymore. When you don’t feel justified by emotion. When you aren’t  _ hurt _ . 

When they’re not already angry at each other, maybe they  _ can _ mention the Accords without it boiling into conflict. 

Maybe Tony can say, he  _ still _ thinks it's the right way forward - and there’s always a space on the team, if Steve does change his mind… but he knows Steve won’t. Maybe he accepts that Steve has a right to make his own political choice and live by it, providing he’s willing to let others do the same - maybe, in this movie, Tony accepts that Steve was always prepared to do that. Maybe he apologises for the way he went about it, even if he still thinks exactly the same thing.

And maybe Steve can smile and say, Tony’s right, he still can’t sign it - but he doesn’t fault Tony for still going with it. In fact, he’s a little less nervous about how things are going to work out, thinking that at least Tony will be keeping a hand on the wheel. Which isn’t to say he wouldn’t rather Tony saw things the way he did - he can be honest about that now. But he can wish Tony well, with what he  _ has _ decided. 

He can even apologise for the fact that he made it harder for Tony. That a little more thought of his part, better choices in a few key places would’ve saved Tony a lot of trouble and cost. Just because they aren’t Steve’s priorities, or the life he’s choosing, he still should’ve remembered those things were important … There’s a lot of things he still would’ve done the same, yeah. But there are things he’d do a little differently, if he had his time again. 

And Tony would nod, because him too. Of course. 

And, this being the  _ right  _ timeline, the one in 14 million shot where everybody won, we’ll say that Bucky strolls out at this point, and smiles at Tony - we can assume they’ve had some sort of healing moment, before now. 

The point  _ here _ is that Bucky is coming out to the car - because Steve is leaving with him. Because even though he could still have signed the Accords, and stayed with Tony, he’s chosen another path. 

And maybe, just because I like the narrative significance, he even says to Tony,  _ it’s not that I’m choosing him instead of you. It’s not that you  _ _ aren’t _ _ my friends- _

And Tony would just wave him quiet. Because, of course, he wouldn’t be siding  _ against  _ Steve, if Rhodey was in Bucky’s situation. He understands what it is to make a choice for someone you love - that it doesn’t necessarily diminish your relationship with others.

But what he could  _ say _ is “Steve - you don’t have to choose a side.”

And they could shake hands…  _ screw it, it’s the  _ _ right _ _ timeline -  _ they could hug, and Steve could be off on his way to grow a beard. 

He could hand Tony the flip phone before he goes.

The letter that comes with it, whatever it says, could end with,

_ If you ever need us Tony, you can always call. And, more importantly, I promise the next time  _ _ I’m _ _ in trouble, I’ll let you know. _

Maybe in this world, the audience are a little kinder. 

Maybe this  _ isn’t _ a world where some people ferociously defend their idols against criticism, and turn viciously on anyone who dares to question them. Maybe in this world, certain people don’t get a free pass, simply because they’re ‘one of the good guys’. Maybe they don’t have teams of fans ready to leap to defend  _ them _ , regardless of the charge. Maybe in this world, those idols would be considered as separate to any one of those extreme fans - maybe people have honest conversations about their mistakes and the lessons they learned, when they’re not being drowned out by a flame war in their honour. 

Maybe in this world, there is no purity politics, or cancel culture. Maybe in this world, certain people don’t have every effort they ever made wiped out by a single mistake. Maybe in this world, certain people aren’t getting twitter abuse from trolls that spend the rest of their lives being far more entitled and ignorant than the person they’re attacking. Maybe this is a world where amazing people are still judged by the same reasonable standard as everyone else - as opposed to the impossible, unasked for standard of what we  _ expected _ them to be.

Maybe in this world, everyone is allowed to have hurt feelings, and everyone is expected to apologise for the poor choices that happen as a result and… that’s… okay.

Maybe in this world I sleep better.

Maybe in this world, I never started writing fan fic. 

But, as long and rambling and - yes, I know -  _ self indulgent  _ this was…

At least, I think I’ll sleep better tonight. 

  
  



End file.
